Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MERSEY TUNNEL BILL

Lords Amendment considered and agreed to.

THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

ESSEX RIVER AUTHORITY BILL

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Tuesday next.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

SELNEC (MANCHESTER CENTRAL AREA RAILWAY, ETC.) BILL

As amended, considered.

To be read the Third time.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (BY ORDER)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Tuesday next, at Seven o'clock.

UNITED REFORMED CHURCH BILL [Lords] (By Order)

WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Prescription Charges

Mr. David Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received asking him to raise the age of exemption for the payment of prescription charges from 15 years of age to 16 years, on the raising of the school leaving age

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): Eighteen letters since the beginning of the year. Replies have explained that no relationship is intended between the age limit for automatic exemption from prescription charges and the age of ending full-time education.

Mr. Clark: Does not the Minister accept that it is a little illogical for the State to accept full responsibility for the education of a child and not to accept full responsibility for the health of a child?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman's own Administration drew the line at the age of 15 for the logical reason that up to that age a wide variety of childhood ailments was prevalent. Above that age we think it is reasonable to move to the general system of exemption which exists for other sections of the population.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware how much hardship this causes to parents who keep their children on at school? Will he seriously consider changing his mind on this question?

Mr. Alison: I hope that my hon. Friend and her constituents are aware of the wide range of exemptions available where hardship arises. As many as 50 per cent, of all prescriptions are prescribed free.

Dr. Summerskill: How does the hon. Gentleman justify charging a child of 15 when it is sick and not charging a child of 14 when it is sick, neither of whom will be wage-earners when the school leaving age is raised? Is not this illogical as well as mean and unjust?

Mr. Alison: On the point of meanness and injustice, I hope that the hon. Lady appreciates that the present arrangements date from the re-introduction of prescription charges by her own Administration. Children of 15 do not themselves pay prescription charges. They are dependants, and the normal exemption arrangements apply for the parents where hardship arises.

Strikers (Benefit)

Mr. Ralph Howell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, to help his formation of policy on payment of supplementary benefit to dependants of strikers, he will examine the practice in other countries, and publish his findings.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): Information about arrangements in some European countries and the United States is being considered as part of the current policy review.
I will, with permission, circulate a summary of the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Howell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread concern at the extent to which the State intervenes on the side of strikers, and does he appreciate how important it is that employers in this country should not be at a disadvantage compared with employers in other Common Market countries?

Sir K. Joseph: I am aware of the concern. The Government are re-examining the position.

Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear that the Government are likely to make another great mistake if they move in the direction suggested by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Ralph Howell)? They have already made a great mistake by introducing the Industrial Relations Act. Is it not clear that there is no widespread concern over this matter except among some of the backwoods Conservative back-benchers?

Sir K. Joseph: No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. There is widespread public concern and it is shared by supporters of both main parties in the House. The hon. Gentleman is very out of touch if he denies that fact.

Mr. O'Malley: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Ralph Howell) that the Supplementary Benefits Commission does not intervene on the side of employee against employer, and that the traditional posture of Government, the National Assistance Board and also the Supplementary Benefits Commission is one of neutrality in which the strikers themselves receive no assistance in the form of supplementary benefit? Will he also instruct his hon. Friend that the proportion of strikers who claim supplementary benefit is only a tiny fraction of the total number of people who go on strike in any one year?

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend was making no comments against the Supplementary Benefits Commission, whose functions and efforts to relieve hardship are respected by Members in all parts of the House.

Following is the information: 
1. This note summarises reports from Labour Attachés in the EEC countries, Sweden and the United States of America.
2. Certain features are common to all the countries involved. Nowhere is the striker eligible for unemployment benefit, but there is generally some provision for hardship relief administered at the discretion of local authorities. Following is the readily obtainable information for three groups of countries:

GERMANY, SWEDEN, HOLLAND AND BELGIUM

3. These countries are characterised by a low incidence of strikes, high levels of union strike pay, and a recognition by unions and the public that strikers should not turn to the state for relief.
4. Union strike pay in Germany and Sweden is usually sufficient to support the striker and his family. Swedish rates of strike pay range from £12 to £18 weekly and in Germany can be even higher; during an engineering strike in Germany in 1970 the main union involved, IG Metall, paid over £9 million in dispute benefit.
5. Any public relief is provided by local authorities as a last resort, and in Germany and Sweden may be repayable. In an unofficial two-month strike of miners at Kiruna, Sweden in 1969–70, about 500 out of 5,000 strikers were assisted, although both the union and the strike committee urged the strikers not to apply for assistance.
6. In Holland and Belgium there is no legal provision removing strikers from eligibility for locally administered relief, but in practice the granting of assistance to strikers is not encouraged.

FRANCE AND ITALY

7. In France and Italy the strike pattern is quite different from the Northern European countries. A large number of days are lost in


strikes, but mainly as a result of very short stoppages involving large numbers of workers. Trade unions cannot generally afford any strike pay at all.
8 The brevity of strikes means that there is usually no question of strikers being subsidised from public funds. In Italy there appears to be no formal provision for public relief. In France, relief is generally restricted to a continuance of family and lodging allowance; this might amount to approximately £20 monthly for a worker with two children living in Paris but is usually less elsewhere.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

9. There is considerable variation in granting relief both between states and within them. 20 states provide for means-tested relief under the Aid to Dependent Children programme, which relies in part on Federal funds. In addition general assistance may be available under programmes that exist in every state, but there are many discretionary authorities, and it is difficult to discern the practical effect of their programmes.
10. Most unions, including nearly all the largest, provide strike pay in official strikes. Some unions have built up substantial strike funds (e.g. the United Automobile Workers' Union fund of £21 million), but rates of strike pay are usually between £10 and £20 weekly—well below normal earnings. Some major unions—e.g. the Electrical workers—pay benefit according to individual need and others, including the Automobile workers, provide flat rate benefits supplemented according to family circumstances.

CONCLUSION

11. None of the countries surveyed provides payments of social assistance from public funds to strikers' families comparable to payments of supplementary benefit in Great Britain. In certain parts of the United States of America relief payments to strikers may be important and in France the continuation of family and lodging allowances is useful assistance to strikers. These cases apart, relief is either not available or is only paid as a last resort in circumstances akin to those of the old Poor Law.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on his plans for granting supplementary benefit to the dependants of men on strike in the form of loans.

Sir K. Joseph: I have no such plans.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to reveal the extent of the pressures being put on him by the cavemen behind him to implement this kind of proposal, and will he resist those pressures, despite the fact that the Industrial Relations Act is now working as we forecast in that there are more working days lost now than at any time in the last 40 years?

Sir K. Joseph: I recognise a great many Neanderthal characters opposite. But the Government are surveying all the alternatives in this difficult field.

Sir G. Nabarro: rose—

Mr. Skinner: The original caveman.

Sir G. Nabarro: I deprecate my right hon. Friend calling hon. Members opposite, in a masterpiece of under-statement, Neanderthal men, but will he realise that every increase in welfare supplementation is a direct inducement to continued strikes by the idle, the in disciplined, and the unworthy?

Sir K. Joseph: I think that my hon. Friend is over-simplifying a relatively complex matter.

Mr. O'Malley: Is the Secretary of State aware that we on this side have noted his unwillingness to agree to the evil and inaccurate propositions put forward by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)? Would he also bear in mind that we regard it as invidious that money paid in supplementary benefits to help ex-strikers and their dependants should be reclaimed as a result of payment in the form of loans, so that their personal circumstances are open to every clerk in every wages office in a company in which there has been a strike?

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member should not speak as if his own Government did not face these problems when they were in office—

Mr. O'Malley: We did not do that.

Sir K. Joseph: Indeed, right hon. Members opposite brought forward to the House proposals which they later dropped under pressure from their own back benches which showed how seriously they took the problem which we are now facing.

Health Protection

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will establish a new section in his Department for health protection which will consolidate under one administrative head the work at present being undertaken on food and drugs, communicable diseases, epidemiology and nutrition.

Mr. Alison: No, Sir. I do not think it would be advantageous to group together all the different subjects mentioned by the hon. Member, and it would certainly not be practicable for one division to cover all aspects of health protection.

Mr. Pavitt: If the Department cannot accept that grouping, will the hon. Gentleman have another look at what is going on in Canada which has established a health protection committee? Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to make a continuing survey of these matters because although, we in the House always talk about preventing illness, it must be appreciated that there is little that either side has ever been able to do about it?

Mr. Alison: I shall study the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question and, if the need arises, I shall write to him further.

Supplementary Benefit (Disregards)

Mr. Dixon: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, in calculating the amount of a war disablement pension excluded for purposes of supplementary benefit payments, he will increase the figure from £2 per week to a level which takes into account the rise in the cost of living since 1966.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): We have undertaken to review the disregard levels at an appropriate time and we shall take into account the rise in the cost of living since 1966.

Mr. Dixon: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if such a review were made now, it would decide that the figure should be increased from £2 to about £2·75? Can he give some idea when a review is likely to take place?

Mr. Dean: My right hon. Friend thought it right during the first two years to concentrate the available resources on improving the level of benefit, particularly in respect of the very severely disabled and also war widows. He has given an undertaking that the rates will be reviewed. We accept that their value has been eroded.

Mr. Skinner: Why not review them a little higher? Last Friday the Govern-

ment revealed that the Prime Minister's pension would amount to £7,500. What is the difference? Why make fish of one and fowl of the other?

Mr. Dean: The hon. Gentleman knows that we now have an annual review of national insurance pensions for the first time ever and that the improvement in the benefit in two years has been well over £1,000 million a year.

Mr. Loveridge: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received, urging him to consider increasing the amount of capital disregarded for the purposes of assessing income for supplementary benefits from £325 to £500.

Mr. Dean: A few suggestions have been made that the £325 figure should be raised, but I am not aware of any suggestion of a figure of £500.

Mr. Loveridge: I am grateful to hear that the Government are considering raising the figure, although I think that £500 of capital should be the minimum disregarded figure—it is not a great deal and surely the Government wish to encourage people to save. The £500 figure would make a difference of 40p per week of income in respect of some one on supplementary benefit. It was as long ago as 1960 that it was last adjusted—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is Question time.

Mr. Dean: Yes, Sir, these rates will be reviewed, but I must point out on the aspect of thrift that an owner-occupied house is completely disregarded and that under the present arrangements people with no other disregarded resources may have up to £800 of capital disregarded.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Following the supplementary question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), may I ask why poorer people are subject to restrictions when more highly paid persons who are awarded higher pensions than the rest have no such restrictions? Surely all people, whether the Prime Minister or anybody else, should be treated in the same way.

Mr. Dean: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is comparing like with like. He is comparing occupational pensions,


for which there is one rule, irrespective of the person and the level of income, with the National Insurance Scheme, which is another matter.

Hearing Aids

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he proposes to announce his decision about the provision, under the National Health Service, of an ear-level hearing aid for all deaf people who would benefit from one.

Mr. Alison: I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Miss Joan Hall) on 8th May.—[Vol. 836, c. 280.]

Mr. Ashley: I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Social Services for taking a greater interest in the problems of the deaf than did any of his predecessors in any Government. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that ear-level hearing aids can be manufactured for £8, compared with the figure of up to £80 by commercial manufacturers? Will he investigate the possibility of the Department manufacturing these aids, or through an agent, and will he resist the suggestion that a commercial firm should operate through the Department?

Mr. Alison: We are aware of the hon. Gentleman's figures. We do not rule out the possibility in any future provision of buying aids already developed by commercial interests, but we would want to supply them as an integrated part of the full medical service for the deaf available in the National Health Service.

Dr. Stuttaford: Does my hon. Friend agree that much anxiety and concern are being expressed in both the medical profession and in societies for the care of the deaf at the lack of choice at present for National Health Service patients, whether in terms of a body-worn set or a post-aural set?

Mr. Alison: Yes, I am aware of the disquiet to which my hon. Friend refers, and we are also fully aware of the preference expressed by many people for a head-worn aid.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the hon. Gentleman look again at his previous answer which stated that the provision was three times

greater than Medresco, since in fact the figure is only two times greater than Medresco? Will he take account of the psychological factor, which is part of the resistance to effective use, and also the fact that Medresco is being exported privately? Does he not consider that a profit could be made for the Department in exporting post-aural aids?

Mr. Alison: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but we do not under-estimate the therapeutic as well as the cosmetic value of head-worn aids. Indeed, the existence of head-worn aids may encourage some people who may turn down other aids to come into aid use entirely.

Dr. Stuttaford: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much has been spent on research by Medresco on hearing aids in 1970 and 1971.

Mr. Alison: My Department's expenditure on Medresco hearing aid research was £2,250 and £2,650 in 1970 and 1971, respectively.

Dr. Stuttaford: Is not that a very small sum of money to spend on the development of hearing aids for National Health Service patients? Is not the only way to overcome the "rackets" of the private hearing aid world to develop a comparable National Health Service instrument?

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend asked a Question about the development of the Medresco hearing aid. He will know that the specification and the development of this hearing aid date back to 1946. It has been developed very substantially now. Further sums are being expended on development outside the immediate Medresco range.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will the hon. Gentleman look further into this? Is it not the case that successive Governments have taken this quesion with insufficient seriousness and that it is necessary to devote much more public money to research to deal with a disability which is not taken sufficiently seriously in any part of society?

Mr. Alison: I have listened with sympathy to the hon. Gentleman's point. I hope that he heard his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who paid a tribute to my right


hon. Friend when he said that an unprecedented degree of thought and concern was being devoted to this aspect of disability.

Dame Joan Vickers: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that this is the best instrument for improving the hearing of deaf people?

Mr. Alison: It is not necessarily the best for every kind of condition, but it covers a very wide range of conditions, although we certainly believe that there is scope for improvement.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Will the Under-secretary at least press his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to exempt hearing aids from the provisions of value added tax?

Mr. Alison: That is a further and very much more far-reaching question, which is beyond the ambit of my responsibility.

Community Hospitals

Mr. Moate: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the rôle and scope of community hospitals as a part of the future hospital service; and if he will announce plans for the development of this concept.

Sir K. Joseph: I am consulting the representative bodies of the medical and nursing professions and of the hospital service about the concept of community hospitals. I will make a statement on the role and scope of these hospitals when the consultations are complete.

Mr. Moate: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his own words of encouragement in recent months in favour of community hospitals have been warmly welcomed by many people who have thought it right to support their own local or cottage hospital? It is appreciated that there are areas of doubt, such as children's wards and casualty facilities, and would he not agree that guidelines might be helpful to regional hospital boards?

Sir K. Joseph: Certain guidelines will be necessary and I shall be issuing them. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind comments. I hope that the qualifications in my various speeches have been noted. There cannot be a charter for the sur-

vival of all cottage hospitals. We cannot afford to provide an intensive service in new district general hospitals and to keep all cottage hospitals, but the community hospital is a new concept to complement district general hospitals and will enable a new function to be found for some of the local hospitals—but only some.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman implement the report on rehabilitation published by his Department today which implies the establishment of a comprehensive scheme of rehabilitation within the community for the mentally handicapped, physically handicapped and other handicapped people? Would not this go a long way towards helping community care?

Sir K. Joseph: It is a different, overlapping and very important question. Rehabilitation presents us with some very difficult and urgent problems.

Retired Pensioners (Commonwealth Reciprocity)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will seek to increase the number of reciprocal arrangements that ensure that a retirement pensioner who, having earned his pension in Great Britain, resides in the Commonwealth, does not thereby suffer a financial penalty by loss of subsequent increases.

Mr. Dean: We seek to increase the number of these arrangements where possible and, in fact, negotiations for a reciprocal agreement with Jamaica, under which each country's pensions and future increases will be paid in the other, are well advanced.

Mr. King: Is my hon. Friend aware that if an eminent civil servant on retirement accepts a lucrative directorship, his pension with cost of living increases is paid in full, but that if a similar civil servant—I have in mind the former head of a Department—elects to go overseas to devote his remaining years to service to an under-developed country in some unpaid capacity, his Civil Service pension is reduced? Is this not so unethical that it cannot possibly be defended?

Mr. Dean: My hon. Friend is talking more about Civil Service pensions, which are not for me, than about National Insurance pensions.

Mr. J. T. Price: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that these discriminations between ourselves and our overseas partners in the old Commonwealth are not restricted only to the benefits referred to in the Question but apply also to health service benefits? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I was astonished the other day to discover that two of my constituents who are British subjects and who enjoy all the facilities and benefits of the health service, could not, on going to Canada, be guaranteed the same facilities? Bearing in mind that Canada is one of our closest partners for whom we have the greatest respect, could not there be a political move towards some kind of reciprocal arrangement with Canada? After all, Canadian subjects coming to this country have the service of our hospitals. British subjects going to Canada, on the other hand, cannot get the same service there without paying heavy fees.

Mr. Dean: We are anxious to encourage reciprocal arrangements in the social services generally, and considerable progress is being made. But it takes time to work out details with any country.

Mr. Marten: In view of a recent announcement by a Government Department or agency that it intends to employ retired people in developing countries, will my hon. Friend look again at the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King)?

Mr. Dean: I explained just now that it was not really a matter for me. However, I will see to it that my right hon. Friend primarily responsible has his attention drawn to it.

Junior Hospital Doctors

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has for improving the working conditions of junior hospital doctors.

Sir K. Joseph: As indicated by my hon. Friend in the Adjournment debate on 21st January, 1972, there have been significant improvements over the years, and I hope that the process will continue.—[Vol. 829, c. 926–38.]

Mr. Whitehead: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report entitled "More in Sorrow" published by the Sheffield Junior Hospital Doctors Association? Its

complaints of overwork, too little free time, and exploitation are matched by the burning anger that many young doctors feel about the way in which they are compelled to dance attendance on the private patients of consultants. Will the right hon. Gentleman do something about this scandal within the National Health Service?

Sir K. Joseph: I am a fairly good reader. I have read every word of that report. I note that the doctors who themselves prepared it stress that a lot of their grievances—I am sure in some cases legitimate ones—should be dealt with by effective approaches to the hospital authorities concerned. It is for them to take their grievances to the authorities. I shall ensure that the regional hospital boards and the hospital authorities concerned study the report "More in Sorrow"

Bronchitis and Emphysema

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will set up an inquiry to investigate the incidence of chronic bronchitis and emphysema in industry, with a view to having it classified as a prescribed industrial disease.

Mr. Dean: No, Sir. Chronic bronchitis and emphysema are extremely common among the general population and there is no evidence to suggest that they could satisfy the conditions for prescription as industrial diseases laid down in Section 56 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1965.

Mr. Skinner: If that is the case, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain why it is that a few years ago chronic bronchitis and emphysema in association with pneumoconiosis was accepted as an industrial disease? If one pursues that kind of logic, someone somewhere in the Department is accepting that chronic bronchitis and emphysema should be a prescribed industrial disease and that there are thousands of miners and ex-miners whose lungs have been destroyed totally as a result of this form of industrial accident. Has the hon. Gentleman any comment on the first point especially?

Mr. Dean: A connection has been established in the case of pneumoconiosis, and it is for that reason that this exception has been made with regard to the


mining community. A great deal of research has been done into bronchitis and emphysema. It is "the English disease", and we have to be careful that we do not prescribe something which does not fall within the terms of the Industrial Injuries Act. None the less, I assure the hon. Gentleman that much research continues into this problem and other industrial diseases. As soon as we get firm evidence that any additional disease can legitimately be brought within the Act, we are prepared to act upon it.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has a case before him from my constituency where the Pneumoconiosis Panel said that a man did not have pneumoconiosis? Subsequently the man died. An autopsy revealed that he had chronic bronchitis, emphysema and pneumoconiosis. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Pneumoconiosis Panel still denied that he had it, despite the fact that the pathologist's report clearly revealed it? Will the hon. Gentleman look again at this matter?

Mr. Dean: I shall look at it gladly, though I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on an individual case now. I emphasise that the exception made in the case of pneumoconiosis has gone a long way to deal with the undoubted problem suffered in the mining community as a result of this disease.

Mental Patients (Community Care)

Mr. Luce: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what studies he has undertaken concerning the provision of alternative care within the community for patients who no longer need mental hospital treatment.

Sir K. Joseph: Following earlier studies in this country and abroad, my Department is now supporting two large, and several smaller, development projects. The aim is to establish to what extent and in what manner the mentally ill or handicapped can be looked after in the community rather than in hospital.

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that. Will he accept that there are a great many people who on discharge from hospitals need gradual adjustment to modern society and that

there are inadequate facilities for the purpose? Will my right hon. Friend consider expanding the number of hostels or half-way houses for the purpose?

Sir K. Joseph: There are grossly inadequate facilities for these and many other related purposes. We are just beginning to realise how much we have to provide. The ten-year plans that I shall be asking local authorities to produce, so that they may be published, in the near future will, I hope, reveal how much local authorities are proposing to expand the present services.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise the great urgency of this matter, as there are thousands of patients in mental hospitals who have no medical need for long-stay institutional treatment? When will the right hon. Gentleman produce the plan for psycho-geriatric patients which has been awaited for some time, since they comprise 44 per cent, of the total number of patients in mental hospitals?

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Lady knows that during all the years since the Mental Health Act, 1959, there have been tens of thousands of patients in mental illness and mentally handicapped hospitals who were not detained under the Act but who were there only because there were no other facilities. The hon. Lady's Government did nothing. For the first time, this Government are trying to expand the services so that those people may come out. Surely we have shown that we take this matter seriously. The circular on psycho-geriatric advice will be coming out later this year. I am consulting authorities about it at the moment.

Kidney Patients (Home Treatment)

Mr. Woodhouse: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will authorise an increase in the allowance payable by regional hospital boards for kidney patients undergoing haemo-dialysis treatment at home in order to meet the cost of heating by electricity as well as the operation of the machine.

Mr. Alison: I would refer my hon. Friend to my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. John Hannam) on 22nd February.—[Vol. 831, c. 255.]

Mr. Woodhouse: Does my hon. Friend not agree, first, that heating is necessary both for the maintenance of the kidney machine and for the comfort of the patient and that kidney patients at home are relieving the hospital services of considerable expenditure both in nursing and on technicians? On both of these grounds, is there not a case for meeting all their costs?

Mr. Alison: I think that my hon. Friend knows that hospital authorities are responsible and that they already meet the cost of electricity used for the kidney machines themselves. Of course, my Department, through the Supplementary Benefits Commission, can help in the cases of people who need extra heating allowances and have limited means.

Mr. Dalyell: What is the policy here? Are people to be encouraged to remain at home or are they to be put with other cases in already overcrowded hospitals?

Mr. Alison: The answer that I have already given, showing that hospitals not only provide home dialysis facilities but also meet the cost of electricity used in them, is an indication of the way in which we want people to be treated at home as far as possible.

Hospital Board Tenants (Rents)

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what instructions have been given by his Department regarding rent increases for tenants living in property owned by regional hospital boards.

Mr. Alison: Hospital authorities are expected to review rents once a year so as to keep in line with the rents of comparable properties in the neighbourhood either by comparison with rents charged by local authorities for similar properties, or, when this information is not available, by obtaining the advice of the district valuer.

Mr. Cox: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency there have already been flat-rate increases of over £1 a week for workers who are not highly paid? As they have no right of appeal—they live in what is really a tied cottage system—surely he will reconsider this and give these people the right of appeal, and also take note of the hard-

ship that these increases are causing to many of them.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman will know that hospital tenants are eligible for rebates from the authorities. If he would like to send me details of the particular difficulties in his constituency, I will certainly look at them.

Consultants (Appointments)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will now send a copy of the Undersecretary of State's letter of 1st May, 1972, to the hon. Member for Nuneaton about whole-time and part-time consultants' appointments in the National Health Service to all regional hospital boards.

Mr. Alison: We are satisfied that employing authorities are aware of the Department's guidance concerning whole-time and part-time consultant appointments.

Mr. Huckfield: But at the end of that letter the hon. Gentleman said:
A consultant on a whole-time or maximum part-time contract is expected to devote substantially the whole of his time to the National Health Service and to give it priority on all occasions.
Will he now do something to ensure that this is certificated, pictured, framed and enshrined in every private consulting-room in this country?

Mr. Alison: There is no need to do that. Hospital consultants and hospital authorities know very well the terms upon which the contracts are entered into. Indeed, consultants in the overwhelming mass fulfil the terms of their engagements, not only to the letter, but very much more so in the spirit.

Mr. William Price: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board area, 60,000 people are awaiting admission to hospitals, yet in 1971, 10,000 people were allowed to jump the queue? Why does he not have a word with the part-time consultants to try to persuade them to spend a little more time on the 60,000 and a little less on the 10,000?

Mr. Alison: Waiting lists of any size need not arise in cases in which medical need is urgent.

Industrial Noise

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what research is being undertaken by his Department into hearing loss caused by industrial noise.

Mr. Dean: None directly at present, but research on all aspects of audiology is being undertaken in a large number of universities, polytechnics and other laboratories. The results of a research project promoted under Section 71 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act were published in 1970 in a report entitled "Hearing and Noise in Industry".

Mr. McNair-Wilson: But my hon. Friend will agree that we are now becoming aware that noise in industry is constituting an injury, that more than 500,000 people are subjected to noise levels continuously of over 90 decibels, and that therefore considerable loss of hearing is being caused. Surely, therefore, insufficient appears to be being done and more should be done to research into this loss of hearing in terms of industrial injury.

Mr. Dean: We share my hon. Friend's concern about this. It is for this reason that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council is now considering whether there are degrees of hearing loss due to exposure to noise in the course of employment which would satisfy the conditions for prescription as an industrial disease. Its inquiries are continuing and I cannot say at the moment when they will be complete.

Mr. Molloy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that noise in industry is having a very serious effect now, not only on the people working in the industries concerned but on folk living nearby? Would he therefore make sure, when these reports are available, that they include the effects on people living near the industries which are causing much of the anguish, not only because of loss of hearing but because of the grave effects on their nerves?

Mr. Dean: I am grateful for that point and will ensure that it is drawn to the council's attention.

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of States for Social Services what was the total amount spent by the West Riding County Council in applying the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act in 1971–72; how much this represents per person in the West Riding; and how this compares with average expenditure per head by other welfare authorities.

Mr. Alison: This information is not available.

Mr. Hardy: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the West Riding and a number of other authorities are not spending anywhere near sufficient on providing for the chronically sick and disabled? Would he consider issuing a circular urgently to the more niggardly authorities, to ensure that their stringent attitude is changed to one of much greater generosity?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman knows, I think, that my Department's responsibility lies only in respect of the provision of services under Section 2 of the Act. Financial returns on this limited basis are no indication of the extent of an authority's provision for the disabled. It may be, for example, that housing or health provision bears directly on the needs of the disabled but does not necessarily follow the figure of expenditure under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.

Mr. Evelyn King: Could my hon. Friend elaborate on the statement that this information is not available? I should have thought that it clearly is. I believe that what he means is that he has not got it from the local authority. Is there not here something of a point of principle—that, although we may on different sides of the House disagree on policy, we would all agree that we are entitled to information? In many social services there is an increasing tendency for Ministers to decline to give information which clearly is available if they ask the local authorities.

Mr. Alison: As it happens, the information is not available for 1971–72, but I will pursue my hon. Friend's point further in correspondence with him.

Mr. Alfred Morris: If the hon. Gentleman wants the information, will he consult the Institute of Municipal Treasurers? Is he aware that full comparative information on the implementation of the Act would be warmly welcomed by all the voluntary organisations in this field? Is it not utterly wrong that chronically sick and even severely disabled people should still be treated well or badly according to which side of a local authority boundary they live?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the Act, in which he played a substantial part in terms of authorship, along with many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, deliberately left the disposition of expenditure in the matter of the Act to local authorities.

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he now intends to take to ensure that all local authorities in England and Wales follow up on a house-to-house basis comprehensive surveys into eligibility for assistance under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.

Mr. Alfred Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what replies he has now received from local authorities on their implementation of Section 1 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alison: I cannot yet add to my reply to the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) on 16th May, but I expect to be able to do so before the House rises for the Summer Recess.—[Vol. 837, c. 67–8].

Mr. Judd: Although many local authorities, often in collaboration with voluntary agencies, have arranged a most comprehensive distribution of information about the Act, would the Under-secretary agree that without a house-to-house follow-up of the kind I have suggested there is a serious danger that the most needy cases will fall through the net?

Mr. Alison: We shall want to judge what has been done in the light of returns from all the authorities concerned. The hon. Gentleman may know that my

Department is producing centrally a booklet which will supplement even more widely the efforts which local authorities are making.

Mr. Morris: Has the Under-Secretary seen the excellent report produced by the social services department of the City of Newcastle-upon-Tyne? Will he arrange for this report to be seen by other authorities and inform the House of the outcome of his inquiries at the earliest possible date?

Mr. Alison: I shall certainly inform the House as soon as we have the fullest possible number of returns from local authorities. The widespread publicity given to the Newcastle project and the natural desire of local authorities to compare notes and to know what is happening in the field would make it unnecessary formally to draw the attention of local authorities to that particular project.

Mental Hospital Patients

Mrs. Doris Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to ensure that persons confined in hospitals for the mentally ill include only those suited to be there.

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied that all hospital patients originally committed to institutions under the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, will now have their cases reviewed; and if he will make a statement.

Sir K. Joseph: Less than 7 per cent, of all patients in psychiatric hospitals are compulsorily detained and they have rights of application to mental health review tribunals. There are large numbers of other patients there from the time when these hospitals were expected to provide residential as well as medical and nursing care. Only as residential accommodation in the community is increased will there be alternative homes for many whose real need is for residential care.

Mrs. Fisher: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is not the problem of trying to empty these hospitals so that they can do their real job in the treatment of mental illness the responsibility of the Government? This


situation will not be resolved by passing the buck to local authorities.

Sir K. Joseph: I sympathise with the hon. Lady's attitude, but the fact is that both parties in the House have regarded local authorities as deserving autonomy in the way that they spend large sums of ratepayers' money as well as taxpayers' money. We have every evidence that local authorities are taking seriously this new task on their shoulders. I hope that when the 10-year plans are produced, and in due course published, the country will be satisfied that the progress in making good an immense backlog is as fast as we can expect.

Dr. Summerskill: I appreciate the difficulties of rehabilitating these patients in the community, but would the right hon. Gentleman, nevertheless, review all cases of patients who were confined in institutions under the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913?

Sir K. Joseph: About 35,000 of the patients now in psychiatric hospitals were originally admitted to them under the Mental Deficiency Acts. Only about 1,000 of these, however, were still detained compulsorily at the end of 1970. All the rest are free to go, if there were anywhere for them to go.

Mrs. Knight: As well as making sure that no persons are confined in mental homes who ought to be outside them, will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that some of those who ought to be in mental homes are placed in them, bearing in mind the horrible tragedy of the deaths of three children recently in Liverpool?

An Hon. Member: Blackpool.

Sir K. Joseph: Yes. My hon. Friend has raised a real worry, particularly in connection with the case of the man in Gloucestershire, about which hon. Members will have read in the newspapers. But there are very few barriers to the admission of people who need hospital care in this sort of hospital. I take my hon. Friend's question very seriously.

Oral Answers to Questions — VIETNAM

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister what communication he has had with President Nixon about the Vietnam war since the Summit talks in Moscow.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Prime Minister what discussions he has now held with President Nixon about the mining of Haiphong harbour and the escalation of United States bombing of North Vietnam.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on the 23rd May to a Question from the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead).—[Vol. 837, c. 1218–19.]

Mr. Allaun: Will the Prime Minister tell President Nixon that Britain welcomes Mr. Porter's return to Paris yesterday and Mr. Porter's statement that Hanoi was determined to make a fresh attempt at serious negotiations? Will he also welcome Mr. Thuy's announcement yesterday that he was prepared to return to Paris from Hanoi with new directives? Does the Prime Minister recognise that he can have no influence on peace in the world if he maintains his stance of being more American than millions of Americans, including Senator McGovern, and that the best thing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—for the Prime Minister is to adopt the stance of the candid friend and ask America now to stop the bombing of civilians?

The Prime Minister: President Nixon has constantly emphasised his desire to negotiate and has set out terms which I should have thought everyone in the House would have considered reasonable. The action he found himself forced to take was brought about because of a massive attack by North Vietnam on South Vietnam.

Mr. Huckfield: Is the Prime Minister aware that in the debate on Vietnam on 15th May this year, the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said:
South Vietnam is defending herself against this ruthless assault as best she can, and in doing so has looked to her ally, the United States, for help."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1972; Vol. 837, c. 95.]
As no democratic elections have been held in South Vietnam since 1954 [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—how can the policy of the American Government be possibly based on claiming to know what the people of South Vietnam want?

The Prime Minister: What is plain is that the people of South Vietnam have


just had a massive attack made on them by North Vietnam. They are resisting, and quite rightly so.

Mr. Churchill: Is it not a matter of concern that, when the United States is going back on its commitments of alliance and protection of countries around the world, the Soviet Union should be taking up these burdens by forming colonial-type treaties with countries such as Egypt, Iraq and India, and would the Prime Minister comment on this?

The Prime Minister: That is a different question from those with which I was dealing. Some aspects of the treaty with Iraq, to which my hon. Friend refers, give us cause for concern.

Mr. Edward Short: Does not the Prime Minister agree that the mining of Haiphong harbour and the escalation of the bombing are a major threat to world peace and are therefore matters of concern to us all? Will the Prime Minister therefore use all the influence he has on the Americans to secure some restraint in their reaction to the Communist offensive?

The Prime Minister: I would have thought that President Nixon had shown unparalleled restraint in a situation in which American prisoners of war are held by the North Vietnamese, who will not even reveal the names of the prisoners they are holding. We heard at the time of the mining of Haiphong that this was a great threat to peace and that it was to be the beginning of a third world war. We also heard that President Nixon's visit to Moscow was to be cancelled. None of these things happened.

Oral Answers to Questions — TUC AND CBI (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Ashley: asked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to hold discussions with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry.

The Prime Minister: I expect to meet representatives of the CBI on 12th July to discuss management education. Otherwise I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to his Question of 16th May.—[Vol. 837, c. 233–5.]

Mr. Ashley: Would the Prime Minister agree that while we have massive increases in rents and profits, and while

the prices of food, housing and land are soaring rapidly, any attempt to impose a wage freeze would be unsatisfactory and unrealistic? Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the best way to reduce the industrial temperature at two strokes would be, first, to call off his legal dogs and, second, to accept the conciliatory approaches made by the TUC?

The Prime Minister: We have always been prepared to discuss any conciliatory approach with the TUC, and that is why I have been having meetings with it. It was last left that the TUC would put forward its proposals for new methods of conciliation, and would exchange views with the CBI about the CBI's proposals. That process is now proceeding and we await the next meeting of the TUC, the CBI and myself, following the discussions they both will have together.

Mr Bruce-Gardyne: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that we are not moving towards another repetition of the declaration of intent?

The Prime Minister: In discussions with the TUC and the CBI the very words "declaration of intent" have never been used, for the simple reason that they are offensive to both sides.

Mr. Thorpe: While recognising the value of a session of management education, has the Prime Minister thought about a session of Government education? Does he still think, after the railway settlement and the dictum in the Court of Appeal, that the Industrial Relations Act is a substitute for a proper prices and incomes policy? Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that, if the Government reverse their present policies, it will not create a precedent? It will be understood and many of us think there could be a period of restraint for both, underpinned by the taxation system.

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to reveal one day to an expectant House his proper incomes and prices policy.

Mr. Heffer: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Industrial Relations Act has been totally unhelpful in solving any of the industrial disputes we have had in the past, particularly recently? Is not the best way to deal with industrial relations to talk seriously


to the TUC about its ideas on conciliation and in the meantime, in order that we should achieve a good climate for industrial relations, to put the Industrial Relations Act on ice? On that basis the Government would make themselves look far less ridiculous than they have in the last few weeks.

The Prime Minister: I have told the House the position about conciliation. The TUC has produced its proposals and the CBI has done the same. There must now be discussion between them, before the Government discuss the proposals with both sides together.
I emphasis again that in any proposals of this kind there must be proper protection for the interests of the consumer. The country is not prepared to accept an arrangement under which employers and trade unions agree between themselves on purely inflationary wage increases. On the second part of the question, when the hon. Member can give the House an undertaking that the trade unions will not make inflationary wage claims, I will listen to his views on the Industrial Relations Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Ministers concerned in relation to the arrangements being made on the Government's behalf to celebrate British entry into the European Economic Community next year; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Parallel committees under the chairmanship of Lord Goodman and Lord Mancroft are preparing, in consultation with the Ministers concerned, an extensive and varied programme of events to celebrate our entry. These will include performances of music and drama, art exhibitions and other events catering for a wide range of tates, both in London and elsewhere in the country.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: As these activities concern the whole country, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that London will not have a monopoly of these desirable activities and that the regions will participate as well? Can he assure me

that the arrangements will cater not only for the highbrow—[Interruption.]—but also for non-intellectuals like myself and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: The two committees are preparing arrangements for Scotland and Wales and for the provinces, as well as for London, so the celebrations will be widespread. They include a wide variety of events, including sporting events and football matches for the Leader of the Opposition—[Interruption.] Many people will have been interested to note that a party which when it was in power liked to boast about what it was doing for the arts is now prepared to show, by its display just now, that it is really a philistine party.

Mr. Faulds: About bloody time—[Interruption.] It is about bloody time—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must put his questions in parliamentary terms.

Mr. Faulds: I was tempted from the straight and narrow, Mr. Speaker.
Regardless of the lunatic baying from both sides of the House from which we have just suffered, would the Prime Minister accept that some of us consider it absolutely ideal to celebrate our entry into Europe in musical and artistic terms? Some of us are very disturbed by the animal sounds of disapproval from both sides of the House.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his support, because I believe that his views represent the feelings of a very large number of people in this country. I should have thought that as a nation we should have been proud to be able to put our artistic achievements on show in London and the provinces, and to be able to offer hospitality to so many distinguished musicians and others who are coming for that purpose.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Would my right hon. Friend consider that this festival should coincide with the Feast of the Holy Innocents, which falls in January and which in Europe is considered to be All Fools Day? Furthermore, will he arrange for the Minister of Food to be dressed as a Beefeater?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend may have rather more influence in adjusting the dates of feasts than I have.

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET MINISTERS (AUTOBIOGRAPHIES)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister what autobiographies of former Cabinet Ministers have been acquired for the library of No. 10 Downing Street since 1st January, 1972.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir. The more revealing passages can usually be read in the Press before publication.

Mr. Blaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are now three conflicting versions from former Labour Ministers of what connoisseurs consider to have been the Leader of the Opposition's second finest hour, the time when he pressed as Prime Minister for British gunboats to be sent to the Gulf of Aqaba? In view of the conflict of evidence on this subject, it would be useful if a definitive version could be written by someone impartial and entirely above the battle, such as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot).

The Prime Minister: I appreciate what a valuable document that would be, but as the hon. Gentleman was below the Gangway and not a member of the Cabinet at the time of those events, I do not think he would have access to the records.

Mr. Paget: In spite of over-studied supplementary questions, is it not a fact that the spate of memoirs coming from both Cabinets undermines the mutual confidence that Ministers should have in each other? Is not the time for applying something like the 30-year rule to ministerial reminiscences overdue?

The Prime Minister: The individual right hon. Gentlemen concerned must take responsibility for their own publications. It has never been possible for a Government to do that, or for the officials concerned to do so. As to undermining confidence between members of Cabinets, that again is a matter for the Prime Minister of the day and his colleagues. I can only comment that it does not seem

to reduce in any way the number of hon. Members wishing to become members of a Cabinet.

Oral Answers to Questions — REHABILITATION (REPORT)

Mr. Carter-Jones: On a point of order. [Interruption.] I have never raised a point of order in the House before. This morning there was a report on the radio about a Department of Health and Social Security report on rehabilitation. It is a very important report, and Members on both sides should have had access to it, particularly as the Department was answering Questions today. I am indebted to the Under-secretary of State and the House of Commons Library for obtaining some information for me on the report. But is it not a reflection on communications in the House that hon. Members on both sides who need the information are denied it on the very day when the report should have been discussed at Question Time?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given me notice that he would raise this point of order. I am informed that the report is not a parliamentary paper, and, therefore, the matter is not for me. I am certain the Minister will have noted the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is not a matter of order.

RAILWAYS (DISPUTE)

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
Last night the British Railways Board and representatives of the three railway unions reached agreement on the basis of a settlement to their dispute. This provided for the implementation of the board's offer to pay from 5th June the rates of pay recommended by Mr. Jarratt and, in addition, lump sum payments to each employee, proportionate to their basic rates and totally approximately £2 million.
The executives of the unions are meeting this afternoon to consider the agreement reached last night.

Mr. Prentice: The extreme brevity of that statement is eloquent testimony to the Government's embarrassment at this stage. The right hon. Gentleman might at any rate have made a brief reference to the constructive rôle played by Mr. Vic Feather at the end of last week in bridging the gap between the two sides and suggesting the basis of the settlement.
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that it is eight weeks ago today that Mr. Feather asked for 24 hours in which to produce a settlement of the dispute? If that offer had been accepted, does he not agree that the terms of the settlement would have been very similar to those which have now been agreed? In those circumstances, does not he owe the House an explanation why throughout that eight-week period the Government have consistently blocked attempts at a settlement and have instead gone through their disastrous manoeuvres with the Industrial Relations Court? I ask him to acknowledge frankly that in their manoeuvres in front of the court they have not only shown their own incompetence in dealing with industrial relations but have also called in question the good faith of Ministers.
Why was the Solicitor-General paraded in front of the court to claim that a cooling-off period would be conducive to a settlement of the dispute when, clearly, it was nothing of the sort, and, clearly, the Government had no intention themselves of making use of the cooling-off period to produce a compromise settlement? Why was he again paraded some weeks later in front of the court to say that the Government had reason to doubt whether the railwaymen were behind their union leaders, when they had no reasons, as the result of the ballot clearly proved?
In this situation, are not the House and the country entitled to a clear explanation of the Government's motives in this period? Does not the period up to the settlement show not merely that the Industrial Relations Act has been proved useless and irrelevant to the solution of problems of this kind but that the Government's credibility, in so far as they had any left, has been further reduced by the episodes of the past few weeks?

Mr. Macmillan: I gladly acknowledge the rôle that Mr. Victor Feather played

in coming to see me and indicating for the first time that there was a possibility of compromise on the part of the unions. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not true."]
I do not agree with anything the right hon. Gentleman said about the Industrial Relations Act. The Act was properly used for the purposes for which it was passed; namely, to ensure through the cooling-off period that in matters of such importance the country was not inflicted with industrial action until it was clear that there was no alternative.
I repeat what I said to the House on Tuesday, that I had good reasons, from contacts during the negotiations, for believing that at varying stages a number of railwaymen would have been happy to see a settlement at a reasonable and moderate figure. There were more general considerations. It was entirely legitimate to doubt how far the unions had carried out any comprehensive or systematic consultation with their members about the acceptability of successive offers. There had been no opportunity for these to be fully considered and understood by all railway employees.
During the process of negotiations under the chairmanship of Mr. Jarratt, the Railways Board's offer was rejected out of hand, and Mr. Jarratt's improved award was also immediately rejected. It was for those reasons that I urged the unions to ballot their membership. All that happened was industrial action and the cooling-off period which followed. The unions maintained the position that they would not be satisfied with anything but an award totalling 14 per cent, of the wages and salaries bill. The board's offer, which was back to 11 per cent., was not regarded even as a basis for negotiation. On 4th May the board's offer to modify the Jarratt award to bring forward the higher rates from 1st January to 5th June was rejected by the executives virtually on the spot, and with no consultation with their membership.
When Mr. Victor Feather came to see me he could give me no indication whether the unions would be willing to move below the 14 per cent, demand. In our final meeting of the board and the unions it was made quite clear to me that the unions would insist on the full amount of a 14 per cent, award. I still felt then that a compromise would be


acceptable to the membership. Indeed, in the event it turned out to be acceptable.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the circumstances of the past week a settlement on these terms or something like it was almost inevitable? It is said that the things that will flow from it may mean higher unemployment and higher prices. In the circumstances, have we not come to the time when arbitration should be compulsory? Is it not a slander on this nation for it to be suggested by hon. Members opposite that we have no one capable of being impartial and knowledgeable enough to act in the rôle of referee? The right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) and my right hon. Friend have referred to Mr. Feather. Can we have circulated Mr. Feather's statement that a 10 per cent, increase in wages and a 10 per cent, increase in prices was not as good as a 6 per cent, increase in wages and a 5 per cent, increase in prices?

Mr. Macmillan: This increase in wages is at a rate of about twice the level of the price increases over the last year. As my hon. Friend has made plain—and perhaps I can make it even plainer—arbitration was rejected in this dispute. The agreement between the board and the unions provides for arbitration, but in the dispute this was rejected by the unions. The union representatives accepted Mr. Jarratt to chair the negotiations and to make an award. That award was also rejected by the unions, and, indeed, it is that which has led to this unfortunate situation.

Mr. C. Pannell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this exercise will be completely wasted unless it has taught him as Secretary of State and the Goverenment in general that the classic qualities of the trade union movement are cohesion and loyalty, and that in the circumstances with which the membership of the unions was faced in the ballot it was bound to give an overwhelming vote of confidence to its leaders? The right hon. Gentleman should really understand the nature of the animal he is dealing with. Does he understand that the series of pranks and platitudes we have had from the Government in the last few weeks has not contributed anything towards a settlement at all, and that much bitterness might have been avoided, and even the

credibility of the National Industrial Relations Court might have held a bit firmer, if the right hon. Gentleman had left the whole thing alone?

Mr. Macmillan: The credibility of the Act is not at issue unless it is regarded as being a method of preventing the unions from taking industrial action if they insist, and it does not do that. I am fully aware of and admire the loyalty of trade union members to their leadership and the trade union movement as a whole. I wish that in some areas other than the railways there was a little more cohesion, lack of which is causing a good deal of damage elsewhere.

Sir J. Rodgers: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, however silly and stupid the question addressed to the membership in the ballot, the result has shown, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has said, the loyalty of trade unionists to their leaders? But does not this fact in itself put an end to the nonsense talked by right hon. and hon. Members opposite to the effect that the Industrial Relations Act is one of union bashing?

Mr. Macmillan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course it makes it plain that the Act never has been and never was intended to be a case of union bashing.

Mr. David Steel: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Government's policy of attempting to resist inflation by means of confrontation lies in ruins? Would he give an estimate of the cost of the dispute, both in terms of the loss of revenue to the board and in terms of the cost of the machinery of the National Industrial Relations Court? Will the Government now determine to work out a positive incomes policy and a positive industrial relations policy?

Mr. Macmillan: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman figures without notice. He has asked about future policy. Whatever policies are adopted, that of trying to contain inflationary wage settlements must continue to be the key for any Government responsible enough to want to contain inflation.

Mr. David Mitchell: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a highly inflationary settlement and that


it will lead to loss of jobs as well as to an increase in fares? Will he condemn the irresponsible attitude of right hon. and hon. Members opposite who support every inflationary wage demand and then quibble at the consequences?

Mr. Macmillan: I would agree it would be better if right hon. and hon. Members opposite would go as far at least as to accept the words of the Daily Mirror, which said that the settlement
is not a famous victory for either the three railway unions or the Rail Board. It is certainly a defeat for the public, who have to foot the bill. This is inflation.
This is what right hon. and hon. Members opposite are supporting.

Mr. Bidwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement suggests that he has learnt nothing, or very little, from this dispute? It is one thing for the unions themselves to put a proposed settlement to their membership and it is entirely another for the State to order a ballot to be taken, which immediately raises the question of solidarity in the trade union movement. Does he not realise now that the compulsory ballot exacerbated the situation and fortifies the whole weight of the argument which we on this side of the House have put?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not agree—but I have learnt a great deal from this dispute.

COUNCIL HOUSES (SALE)

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): Mr. Speaker, I will, with permission, make a statement on the sale of council houses.
The demand for home ownership has never been stronger than it is today. The Government are pledged to meet that demand. One of our first actions on taking office was to remove the restriction imposed in 1968 by the previous Government on the sale of council houses.
The response from many local authorities has been encouraging. But there are still local authorities which refuse to sell council houses to their tenants and some which used to sell but have now ceased to do so. The Government consider that for the very great majority of

local authorities there is no conflict whatever between the adoption of positive policies for the sale of council houses to their tenants and their other housing responsibilities. The local authorities, as the present owners of the houses, have it in their power to meet the desire of their tenants for home ownership. In the Government's view, they have a duty to use this power. If they do not, they will be failing to take proper account of their housing responsibilities. They will also be failing to play their part in helping to secure an adequate supply of houses for sale at a reasonable price.
The Government have accordingly decided that the time has come for all local authorities to review their policies in this important field. A circular is being sent today to all local authorities in England urging them to adopt a policy of selling houses to those of their tenants who wish to buy. In view of the interest of right hon. and hon. Members in this matter, I have arranged for the text of the circular to be included in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is sending a circular in similar terms to all local authorities in Wales.

Mr. Freeson: There had been a rumour that the Government were to make a statement about the possible deferment of the Housing Finance Bill. That would have been far more relevant to our housing need and to the inflationary situation than the pathetic announcement we have just had. Why did the right hon. Gentleman ever bother the House with such a statement?
Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware, as Minister for Housing and Construction, that the shortage of good property to let at reasonable rents is much graver for most city and town areas of the country than the shortage of houses for sale? Is he not aware that, while there may be an undoubted demand among some sitting tenants on council estates for owner occupation, it would be far better if local authorities were able to build specifically for sale in addition to building for rent rather than sell off rented accommodation which is already in short supply? Is he not further aware that the increased provision of non-rented housing is disinflationary compared with the sale of existing


properties on the private market, which is inflationary? Is he not further aware—

Hon. Members: Too long.

Mr. Freeson: —or let him be aware, that the Labour Party will resist the Conservative Party's policy of wholesale and indiscriminate selling off of rented dwellings? Is he also aware that we believe that local authorities could provide more rented houses at reasonable rents, not fewer, and that if there is to be provision for owner occupation it should be by building for sale by local authorities? Specifically on that point, what does he intend to do about the score or more authorities already listed in his Department which wish to build for sale in addition to rent? What will he do—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Front Bench has certain accepted latitudes on these matters but there must be a limit.

Mr. Freeson: What is the Minister going to do about the present price of all kinds of properties for sale, including council houses costing as much as £10,000? Will he now—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I intervened just now. The hon. Member must realise that he has now cut out at least two or three back benchers.

Mr. Freeson: If I may say so, that is a matter entirely within your discretion, Mr. Speaker.
May I put my last point to the Minister? Will he, in place of his ridiculous and irrelevant circular, issue a circular to local authorities indicating the Government's intention to back a major expansion in the building of houses and flats at reasonable rents by local authorities throughout the country.

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman seriously under-rates the extent of the demand for home ownership from council tenants. Last year between 60,000 and 70,000 council tenants bought houses in the private sector. Had they been able, to the extent that they wished, to buy their own houses they would have satisfied their aspirations for home ownership and at the sametime would have relieved the pressure at the lower end of the housing market. The hon. Gentleman

talks of the shortage of rented accommodation. The present Government, unlike the previous one, place no restriction on their approval of the building of council houses by local authorities. The rising amount of the slum clearance subsidies proposed in the Housing Finance Bill will make it easier and more attractive for local authorities to build council houses where there is a need for them.
The hon. Gentleman asks me about the price of houses generally. The present price represents the balance of demand and supply in the country. People have always wanted to buy their own homes; now for the first time they are beginning to have enough money to do so. It is interesting that in 1969 first-time mortgages were 265,000 and last year they were 370,000. Although a good deal is said about the difficulties facing young people buying houses for the first time, in 1969 105,000 mortgages were issued to people under the age of 25 and last year it was 145,000, which shows a spectacular increase.
The hon. Gentleman—I am sorry to take up the time of the House but I have been asked a lot of questions—asked about building for sale. It has always been the Government's view that the private developer is a more efficient builder. I have, equally, made it clear that I am perfectly prepared to authorise local authorities to build for sale both in specialised markets, such as houses for the disabled, and where private enterprise for one reason or another does not wish to compete.

Mr. Gurden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the majority in this House are very grateful to him for his statement and that certainly many municipal tenants are grateful to him? Is he aware that I have withdrawn my Private Member's Bill which was for this very purpose, to make more home owners out of municipal tenants? Is he further aware that I hope that local authorities will see the light now and not cause such a Bill to be reintroduced?

Mr. Amery: I would like to pay tribute to the strenuous efforts of my hon. Friend to promote the sale of council houses. The substantial support which his proposals have received inside and outside the House testify to the strength of public


opinion on this subject. I join with him in hoping and believing that local authorities will show the good sense to proceed with the sale of council houses on the lines I have indicated. Of course the Government could not remain indifferent if that was not the case.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if political dogmatism could build houses he would be the most successful Housing Minister ever, whereas he is in reality the least successful Minister we have had for many years? Will he admit that he has been in the business of selling council houses for two years now? Will he tell us how many he has sold, and will he say how his circular will contribute to getting more houses built and bringing down their cost?

Mr. Amery: In 1970 6,000 council houses were sold; last year the figure was over 16,000. In the first quarter of this year the figure was 7,000; that is, more than the whole of the 1970 total. If we go on at that rate 30,000 will be sold this year, and I would hope to see the total go well over50,000 if all goes well. The hon. Gentleman asks what effect this will have on house prices. As he knows, local authorities are authorised to sell at a discount of 20 per cent., and even 30 per cent, in some cases, to sitting tenants. If this provides more houses for sitting tenants to buy and reduces the pressure at the lower end of the private sector this will contribute to the stabilisation of prices.

Mr. James Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the disappointment of many hon. Members on this side of the House? Is it not time he made it mandatory that we sell council houses? Is it equitable that in some areas council tenants can buy and in others they cannot? Would he answer his own conscience? Can he not give us some indication of his plans?

Mr. Amery: The Government prefer to rely on persuasion and the good sense of local authorities at this stage. I have confidence in the response of the local authorities to the circular which we have issued. If the circular should be ineffective in increasing sales of council houses the Government could not remain indifferent.

Mr. George Thomas: Is the Minister prepared to answer detailed questions on the application of this circular in Wales? If he is not, and as there is no one from the Welsh Office on the Government Front Bench, when will the Government give us an opportunity to put questions on the detailed effect of the circular in the Principality?

Mr. Amery: The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends from the Principality can no doubt put down their own Questions to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Thomas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not offensive—[Interruption.] I am raising a point of order. Is it not offensive that Welsh Members are precluded from asking questions on a circular which will have a great effect in Wales? In the City of Cardiff there are nearly 4,000 families on the waiting list for council houses, and we cannot ask the Minister any questions about the matter. Will the Minister ensure that his right hon. and learned Friend will come to the Dispatch Box and submit himself for questions?

Mr. Amery: Further to the right hon. Gentleman's point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman totally misunderstands the situation. He asked me whether I was prepared to answer detailed questions. Such questions would be difficult to answer in respect of England as well as Wales without notice. I am prepared to answer general questions because of their wider application to both England and Wales.

Following is the circular—
1. I am directed by the Secretary of State for the Environment to express his concern at the response of local authorities to Ministry of Housing and Local Government Circular No. 54/70. That Circular emphasised the Government's intention to encourage the spread of home ownership and removed the restrictions imposed in 1968 on the sale of council houses in certain areas.
2. The Secretary of State appreciates that many local authorities share the Government's wish that council tenants should have the opportunity of buying the house in which they live, that the number of local authorities who sold houses increased significantly in 1971, and that there has been a substantial increase in the number of individual sales. But he notes with regret that many authorities continue to adopt policies which frustrates their tenants' desire to own their home. In recent months he has received numerous representations on this score from tenants and other persons.


3. The Secretary of State accordingly urges all local authorities who are reluctant to sell council houses to those tenants who wish to buy them to reconsider their policies. In his view, unless the local circumstances are quite exceptional, a local authority who deny their tenants the opportunity to own the house which they have made their home would be failing to exercise their powers under section 104 of the Housing Act 1957 in a manner which is appropriate to present circumstances. The housing duties of a local authority extend to the consideration of all the housing needs of their area. In the opinion of the Secretary of State these needs include those of the tenants of the authority who aspire to home ownership. He is convinced that it is possible for an authority to meet those needs in a way which is compatible with their responsibilities for meeting their area's requirements for dwellings to let. Many council tenants who are anxious to buy their home would not wish to move if they were denied this opportunity. Sales to such tenants would not there fore affect the supply of accommodation which the authority could let to prospective tenants. Sales to other tenants could normally be offset without difficulty by further building. The Government does not propose to restrict the numbers of further dwellings which authorities can provide to meet local needs.
4. It is often argued that council tenants aspiring to home ownership ought to be content to buy a house in the private sector. In the Government's view, this argument fails to do justice to the legitimate desire of many council tenants to remain in a house which they have made their home and not to sever their ties with a congenial neighbourhood. Moreover if council tenants can buy a house only in the private sector, their council needlessly creates additional demand for houses in that sector which can only aggravate the present pressure on house prices, particularly for houses in the lower price ranges.
5. The effect on the Housing Revenue Account of selling council houses will depend on the circumstances of the case. Should

the transaction give rise to a deficit, e.g. if the authority found it necessary to provide additional new dwellings to replace sold houses which would otherwise have been available for letting to prospective tenants, the subsidies proposed under the Housing Finance Bill will, if the Bill is enacted, meet the major part of such a deficit. In addition, as was announced in Circular No. 51/72, contributions payable under the Housing Act 1969 for improved or converted council houses which are sold on or after 1 April 1972 will continue to be payable for the normal 20 year period.
6. Accordingly the Secretary of State urges those authorities who have not so far felt able to give those of their tenants who wish to buy their home the opportunity of so doing, to review their policies on this issue in the light of this circular and to have regard to the wishes of their tenants. In his view, the great majority of authorities will fully discharge their housing responsibilities only if they pursue the policies recommended in this circular. Authorities are reminded that, as was explained in Circular No. 54/70, they may sell at up to 20 per cent. below unrestricted market value where resale conditions are imposed.

BILL PRESENTED

PROTECTED TENANCIES (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Marcus Worsley, supported by Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, Sir Brandon Rhys Williams and Mr. Christopher Tugendhat presented a Bill to enable dwelling houses of any rateable value to qualify under the provisions of that section relating to protected tenancies: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16th June and to be printed. [Bill 157.]

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL

[4TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 8th June].

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 2

General Implementation of Treaties

4.2 p.m.

The Chairman: I have a short statement which I shall read to the Committee before we commence our proceedings. I have received representations about Amendment No. 429, which is not included in my provisional list of Amendments selected. After giving the matter careful consideration I am prepared to call this Amendment in an amended form: namely, in page 4, line 25, at end add:
(7) Nothing in the foregoing subsections shall enable regulations to be made allocating the representation of the Houses of Parliament at the European Parliament which representation shall only be effected in accordance with the following subsection.
(8) The lists of names of the proposed representatives of the Houses of Parliament at the European Parliament shall be laid in draft before, and shall be subject to the approval of, the House of Commons.
This Amendment will be taken after we have disposed of Amendment No. 253.
I have also decided to allow Amendment No. 349 to be discussed with Amendment No. 253.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Sir Robert, as a result of what you have just said there will, or can, be more than one debate falling within a section of the time allotted under the guillotine Motion.
Might I bring to your attention the impropriety of any steps which might be taken to preclude members of the Committee both from discussing the Amendments and coming to a decision in the Lobby on the Amendments that you have thought it proper to call? I express the hope that there will be no repetition

of the disgraceful scene which disfigured the last proceedings upon this Bill.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: On behalf of the Opposition, we share the feelings of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). We deplore the conduct of the Government's spokesman at the last sitting of the Committee.

The Chairman: In answer to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray), as far as I am concerned nothing irregular took place. I am bound by the terms of the business Motion of the House, and upon that I have to act. There is nothing I can see on which I could be criticised on this matter. No doubt what the right hon. Gentleman and hon. and learned Gentleman have said will be noted.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: I beg to move Amendment No. 420, in page 3, line 37, leave out from beginning to 'except' in line 43.
Perhaps, having expressed certain words of disquiet a moment ago, I may, on behalf of the Opposition, thank you, Sir Robert, for the added debates you have enabled to take place in the Committee by reconsideration of your provisional selection of Amendments.
It is my understanding that we are to discuss along with Amendment No. 420 which I have moved, Amendment 182, in page 3, line 40, leave out from 'Parliament' to end of line 46.
Amendment No. 313, in line 40, leave out from 'Parliament' to 'but' in line 43.
Amendment No. 8, in line 41, after 'shall', insert 'unless the contrary appears'. And Amendment No. 183, in line 46, at end insert:
(5) Except as may be expressly provided by any Act passed after this Act, all Acts of Parliament (including Acts of the Parliament of Northern Ireland) and all Orders in Council and all instruments made in the exercise of any statutory power or duty, including all orders, rules, regulations and other subordinate instruments, in force upon the entry date or passed after the entry date, shall be construed and have effect subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section.
(6) Except as expressly provided by any enactment to which subsection (5) of this section applies, if in any legal proceedings a con-


flict arises between any such enactment and any provisions of the Treaties or any Regulations made there under or any Decisions of the European Court, the court seized of the dispute in which such conflict arises shall, in resolving such conflict, have regard to the provisions of subsection (5) of this section, and may declare that any such enactment or part of such an enactment is contrary to the Treaties or Regulations or Decisions, and of no effect.
These Amendments have one thing in common, although Amendment No. 183 is rather different in some of its objectives. They have in common that they all unanimously agree that the wording as it stands in subsection (4) will not do. The extent of its obscurity may be in dispute but not the fact of the obscurity.
Amendment No. 183 may have less support on both sides of the Committee because it is rather more restrictive in its objective than the other Amendments. However, Amendment No. 8, which is, clearly, a minor Amendment, clarifies what is otherwise an obscure passage. For the remainder, Amendments Nos. 420, 182 and 313 have common objectives. Indeed, they focus on precisely the same point.
At the outset it is important that the Committee sees what subsection (4) apparently sets out to do. It apparently—Isay this with some diffidence because it is far from clear and one is charting unknown seas in these lines of the Bill—seeks to set limits upon the powers conferred in subsection (2). That is the first objective.
The second objective seems to be to enact residual safeguards for parliamentary control as are contained in Schedule 2.
Clearly, 1 must be careful what I say about the quality of these safeguards. That must be a matter which the Committee will have to consider when we come to debate Schedule 2. However, the apparently innocent purpose of subsection (4), which I have sought to outline, is belied by three circumstances. The first is the qualifications on the powers conferred by subsection (2). If they relate to subsection (2), as they innocently appear to do, and if they have an innocent and praiseworthy objective—namely, to apply even limited parliamentary safeguards to the powers conferred in subsection (2)—why are they not part of subsection (2)? If that is to what they relate and that alone, they

should be part of subsection (2). If they are not part of subsection (2) they should be adjacent to it and contained in the following subsection.
Far from that being the case, there is the intervention of subsection (3). That is one of the most important pivots of the whole Bill dealing with the basic structure of finance in the event of our joining the Community.
One must assume that there is some purpose in putting the contents of this subsection after that vitally important provision. If the Committee will pause for a moment and consider the matter, the point I have just made about the position of this so-called safeguard limiting the powers of subsection (2) is such an obvious one that the rôle in which it is cast in subsection (4) must put the motives of the Government in so placing it in an oblique and sinister light.
The second circumstance to which I draw attention is the wording of the first four lines of subsection (4) down to the word "Parliament" in line 40. These words seem to extend rather than to restrict the scope of the already far-reaching powers of subsection (2). It is difficult to understand what those words are intended to do, if not that.
I commend Amendment No. 420 to the Committee because it is the only Amendment which seeks to delete these words entirely. If these words were taken away. I understand that the normal operation of law, and particularly the vires rule, would prevent delegated legislation from wholesale repeal of Acts of Parliament. The normal operation of law would prevent the provisions of subsection (2) from wholesale repeal by delegated legislation.
To put the point in a sharper way, normally secondary legislation must rely upon primary legislation. It would be a unique and unusual departure to do what these lines apparently do; namely, give the power to delegated or secondary legislation wholesale to repeal primary legislation. This seems a unique departure. It seems to be done, as it were, by way of afterthought in a subsection which is apparently innocent and has a praiseworthy purpose. In other words, the Government appear to contemplate with equanimity a wholly new constitutional change; and, far from doing it openly, they have done it obliquely and with subterfuge.
Thirdly, andworst—last, but by no means least—we have the mysterious passage at lines 40 to 43, which is the subject of Amendment No. 313, which, appropriately enough, has the support of both sides of the Committee. This is indeed an enigma wrapped in mystery. The passage does not appear to be innocent. Indeed, guilty subterfuge is written all over it. It is tucked away in the middle of some pretty opaque and turgid prose along with its parenthetical accomplice, at the end of Clause 3(1), lines 29 to 32,which are in brackets. These accomplices together seem to be intended to impose by a side wind or afterthought the supremacy of European jurisprudence over the law of this country. It looks like an afterthought, but I wonder whether it is. It can only bean afterthought or subterfuge. There is no alternative.
The Committee may be reluctant to take my word for it, but perhaps it will consider what Professor Wade said in a learned article published in The Times some weeks ago which has been mentioned in earlier debates. The article, by Professor H. W. R. Wade, was called "The judges' dilemma". I think it is an appropriate title. Dealing with many topics of importance in connection with the Bill, Professor Wade, touching upon the contents of subsection (4), says:
The present Bill can and does make community law prevail over existing Acts of Parliament. It also expressly attempts to make it prevail over future Acts".
I pause to quote the words in lines 40 to 43:
any enactment passed or to be passed, other than one contained in this Part of this Act, shall be construed and have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this section".
On the face of it, this is a provision seeking to bind future Parliaments.
Professor Wade continues:
It also expressly attempts to make it prevail over future Acts, by a few words in clause 2(4)"—
those are the words which I have just quoted—
awkwardly wedged in the middle of a long sentence about other things, as well as by some words coyly lurking in brackets in clause 3(1). But here it falls foul of the classical principle of Parliamentary sovereignty, which ordains that no Parliament can bind its successors. Where two Acts of Parliament conflict, the later Act must always prevail.

It is in that faith that the Government have from time to time said that the sovereignty of the House of Commons is not affected by joining the Community. Whether that faith is justified is another matter.
The learned author goes on to say:
nothing that the present Bill can say can make any difference.
So at worst for the Government these words are inept because
nothing that the present Bill can say can make any difference.
if Parliament truly cannot bind its successors.

4.15 p.m.

The other interpretation which is open is that the Government, by means of this passage, are seeking to change the constitution of this country. That alternative possibility is mooted by Professor Wade at another point in his article. Having said that Parliament cannot bind its successors, he points out that judges may, because they may interpret the law in a way different from Parliament under the spell of European jurisprudence which is being put upon the judges in Clause 2(4) and Clause 3(1). Who can say what the judges will decide under the spell of that foreign jurisprudence?

Professor Wade, speaking about that, says:
The one thing that our legally omnipotent Parliament cannot do is to better its own continuing sovereignty over our law. But the judges can alter it—just as they did, without any strictly legal warrant, in transferring their allegiance from the Parliament of James II to the Parliament of William III.

He then makes the point which I have already made, and there is considerable weight behind it:
Either the Bill's provision about future Acts is meaningless in any case of real conflict; or else the Government is assuming that there will be a constitutional revolution of just the kind it is at pains to deny.

It is important to stress the latter point, because the Government have been at pains to deny that they are proposing such a revolution and change in the sovereign power of the House of Commons.

I should like to focus attention upon one particularly sinister word in line 40; namely, "enactment". It might be convenient if I quote again the words which are sought to be deleted by both Amendment No. 420 and the all-party Amendment No. 313:


any enactment passed or to be passed, other than one contained in this Part of this Act, shall be construed and have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this section".

It is significant that the word "enactment" is used. I conceive that it could have three meanings in this passage. First, its obvious meaning would be an Act of Parliament. One can understand that, because it is the usual use of the word "enactment". However, I do not think that can be the purpose of the word here, because the term "Act of Parliament" is mentioned in subsection (4). The subsection says "Act of Parliament" when it means "Act of Parliament". Therefore, although the word "enactment" is assumed to cover an Act of Parliament, it is not used to cover one in line 40.

Secondly, it could mean secondary legislation—regulations or Orders in Council which are enacted by Statutory Instrument. Certainly it could have a meaning there. That would give some kind of sense to the word. But, apart from "Act of Parliament" and "Statutory Instrument"—secondary or delegated legislation—the obvious reason for using a different word in the subsection from words, hallowed by experience, which have been used in other portions of the Bill, is that "enactment" can mean a Community enactment as well as an Act of Parliament, whether primary or secondary legislation.

If that is what it means then the worst years which have given rise to Amendments Nos. 420 and 313, and have given rise to disquiet on the part of Professor Wade and the article which he wrote in The Times, are fully justified.

For those reasons I would commend the Amendments to the Committee. I would commend Amendment No. 420. It is a more wholesale surgery. It has this merit. If Amendment No. 420 were given effect to, then the apparently innocent purpose of subsection (4) would appear to be fully met by the remaining words, because if the Committee will read after the word "but" in line 43 they will see that, although it is not tremendously elegant, it is what is said; it would be apt to convey exactly the innocent purpose of subsection (4). What goes before is unnecessary because the normal operation of law would lead to that result.

Mr. Powell: I wonder why the hon. and learned Member is so sure that the words after "but" in line 43 are innocent. They appear to have the effect of suggesting that a future Act of Parliament could limit the safeguard included in Schedule 2. Indeed, if they do not have that meaning and effect it is difficult to see what they have.

Mr. Murray: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. I was prepared to sacrifice the lesser evil for the greater good.
There is also the possibility that stronger safeguards could be put in. It is on that sort of position that this Amendment was drafted. It is not without dangers. But the dangers which I foresee are much greater dangers. We would want to have some protection against those.
I would commend Amendment No. 420 to the Committee. Amendment No. 313 has support from both sides of the Committee. On any view—and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me—Amendment No. 313 goes right to the evil heart of the matter.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The Amendment in my name is Amendment No. 313, to which the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) has just referred. It is concerned with the second aspect of the matter to which he directed attention. He rightly said it is a very important one in constitutional principle.
When we were considering subsection (1) of Clause 2 we saw that it constitutes a revolutionary reversal of cherished constitutional doctrine with its self-enacting regulations and its commitment to the future dictates of executive bodies not subject to parliamentary control.
That subsection constitutes a heavy and unprecedented blow to the sovereignty of Parliament in that it impinges on two of its basic ingredients; that is to say, that Parliament should be the sole law-making authority in this country and that its authority should be unfettered. Where such a blow has been inflicted it might be thought that the recipient is so punch drunk as barely to notice in his bruised and battered state any further blows which may be rained upon him.
Nevertheless we cannot, in my view, as Members of the House of Commons, as representatives in our generation of the parliamentary tradition, as heirs to its rights and trustees for their preservation, be insensitive to the further blows contained in this subsection. It may not be as injurious as subsection (1). It hardly could be. Nevertheless its effect is to curtail the rights of Parliament with a severity which could be unthinkable if we had not already considered subsection (1).
Subsection (4) is in its own way just as revolutionary as subsection (1) in that it impinges on this other cherished constitutional principle which Professor H. W. R. Wade has defined as
the classic principle of parliamentary sovereignty which ordains that no parliament can bind its successors.
It is perhaps a minor inconvenience when discussing matters of constitutional law and practice in this country that there are, in fact, two Professor Wades: Professor E. C. S. Wade of Cambridge, our latter-day Dicey, and Professor H. W. R. Wade—late of Cambridge; now of Oxford—a very eminent younger figure.
The quotations given by the hon and learned Gentleman came from the excellent article of Professor H. W. R. Wade in The Timesof 18th April. That doctrine is impinged on by these subsections and by the few words in subsection (4) which briefly, boldly and brazenly attempt to make the provisions of the Act prevail in perpetuity over the provisions of any future Act which future Parliaments may in their wisdom seek to enact. It is those words which my Amendment No. 313 would seek to omit, and rightly so, because no Parliament can arrogate to itself the right to prejudice future needs and future circumstances which are necessarily unknown and necessarily unpredictable at the time of enactment. To do so would be illogical as well as presumptious since the indispensable ingredient of law-making is the preservation of that flexibility which allows to succeeding generations the right to adapt to their needs, the right to repair here and renew there, to extend and modify as necessary, the solid and serviceable structure of our laws.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Is my right hon. and

learned Friend saying that if these words were to be left they would override the sovereign right of Parliament to override its predecessors?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: That is what they seek to do. Whether they can do it or not is something to which I am coming in my argument. But that is what on the face of it they seek to do. To do that, to deny to future legislators that right, or to seek to deny it, is to place a clear fetter on the sovereignty of Parliament and impose an ineradicable weakness on our law-making machinery. That is what subsection (4), on the face of it at any rate, seeks to do. In so doing it acts contrary to our basic concept of parliamentary sovereignty.
It may be asked where we find the formulation in our law of this classic principle to which Professor Wade refers, the concept that Parliament cannot bind its successors. In a sense we do not find it. Having no written constitution in this country, we do not formulate our constitutional principles in that way. We have no need to in this case because we can pluck this principle straight from the basic characteristics of parliamentary sovereignty as practised over the generations.
The principle that Parliament cannot bind its successors derives directly from the first of three traits of parliamentary sovereignty in this country as identified by Dicey: that is to say, the power of the legislature to alter any law, fundamental or otherwise, as freely and in the same manner as other laws. It is part of what Bryce in his Studies in History and Jurisprudence called "the flexibility of the British constitution". Dicey said:
Every part of it can be expanded, curtailed, amended or abolished with equal ease.
"Can be"? But no longer if this subsection is passed and given effect to. If the Clause were passed, those great masters of constitutional law and practice could not use the same terms today. They would have to substitute "could formerly have been expanded, curtailed, amended or abolished, but now no more" since they would operate within the limitations of these words. We can imagine that it would be a matter of some grief to them to see so radical and retrograde an alteration in their definition of the constitutional position.
Parliament can legislate successfully only if its power is unfettered. It cannot do so on the basis of a constitutional mortmain, with the dead hand of a Parliament of the past laid upon the future so as to prevent enactments in accordance with contemporary needs and current sentiment.

4.30 p.m.

Our constitutional practice has always been clear. In the case of a conflict between two Acts of Parliament the later prevails, in conformity with the rule leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant. Later laws abrogate earlier laws which are in conflict with them. We are told in the leading textbook," Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes," that a later Statute may repeal an earlier one either expressly or by implication. If, therefore, there is a conflict, the earlier Act must give way even if the later Act does not expressly repeal it. The reason for that is clear, and the reason is the same. Each Parliament is unfettered and must be assumed to know best the needs and conditions of the time for which it is legislating.

Mr. Percy Grieve: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, whilst the first part of what he says may well be right—that is to say, that implied variation by the effect of the Clause on subsequent legislation would not prevail—the power of Parliament expressly to vary it could not for one moment be said to lie within the construction of the Clause?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: My hon. and learned Friend is on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-East (Sir Gilbert Longden) was on earlier—thatis to say, the effect of this—and I am coming to that. What is clear is that the intention, the will and the desire of these words is to do this unconstitutional thing. There can be no doubt about it. It is expressed clearly in the words we have already heard from Professor Wade's article:
It…
that is, the Bill, and the Clause—
…also expressly attempts to make it prevail over future Acts, by a few words in Clause 2(4)…".
Those are the words to which I am

addressing myself, and which my Amendment would omit.
There can be no doubt what the Clause seeks to do. It seeks to bind future Parliaments, to fetter their jurisdiction and to breach the principle which has always animated the relationship between earlier and succeeding Parliaments.

Mr. Ian Percival: rose—

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am coming to the question which I think my hon. and learned Friend wishes to ask. That is the question whether, in fact, so desiring, they can do so.

Mr. Percival: In what way do these words fetter the action of any future Parliament? If, as I think, they do not fetter a future Parliament in any way, why should one read into them an intention to do so?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: An Act of Parliament abhors a vacuum just as much nature. If my hon. and learned Friend's contention is that the words are meaningless, that they effect nothing, why are we asked to enact them? We are a workshop. Our business and concern are with the fabric of the law, and we have no right to put into it things which can have no effect. With great respect to my hon. and learned Friends, if those are the best arguments for the words they can put forward, they are not very substantial ones.
It may be that my hon. and learned Friends are discharging the rôle familiar in mediaeval tourneys and in the bull ring; that they are put out in advance for a little light skirmishing and we may hear more substantial points from my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. But I am a little sceptical, because I share the view of Professor Wade and the hon. and learned Member for Leith as to the dilemma that is here imposed.
We have to ask ourselves the question: that being manifestly the intention and the desire of these words, can what is sought to be done be done? Has Parliament the power—

Mr. Percival: rose—

Sir D. Walker-Smith: My hon. and learned Friend rises when I am halfway between semi-colons. If he will restrain


his impatience for a moment I will certainly give way.
The question we have to pose is: has Parliament the power, even if it has the will, to bind successor Parliaments? There again we have this trenchant answer on the authority of Professor Wade that it has not. The hon. and learned Member for Leith read out the words:
The one thing that our legally omnipotent Parliament cannot do is to fetter its own continuing sovereignty over our law".
The hon. and learned Gentleman did not read out these words:
It is therefore inherent in the whole problem that nothing that the present Bill can say can make any difference.
If that be so, there is no point in these words and we are being asked in effect to enact a nullity. We are being asked—does my hon. and learned Friend wish to make an intervention?

Mr. Percival: I wondered whether my right hon. and learned Friend was coming to a colon.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I will come to an exclamation mark in order to give way to my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Percival: I only want to correct what my right hon. and learned Friend said about what I said. I am not saying that the words have no effect. As long as they stand and are not qualified by any later enactment they are effective in relation to that enactment. I was saying that they do not in any way fetter the discretion of the House to say in respect of any future enactment that these words do not apply to it. They are not any fetter on the discretion of future Parliaments.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I repeat, if they are not that they are nothing. We do not have to say in an Act of Parliament that regard shall be had to that Act in the construction of legislation in the courts, but that is subject to the fact that in any conflict with a later Act the later Act will prevail. It is that which the Clause seeks to get round. It is necessary to get round that because of the obligations imposed upon us by the Treaty of Rome.
There is no mystery in the matter. The only mystery, as Professor Wade has

correctly identified, is that the drafting is obscure, or at any rate it is guarded—

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Woolly!

Sir D. Walker-Smith: "Woolly" is a term which I was hoping to avoid. Of course it is, because it has to do something which is inherently repugnant to people brought up in the British parliamentary tradition. That is the key to the subsection. There is no mystery about it when we analyse it.
It is right that this no doubt would be a nullity if a subsequent Parliament did not choose to follow it. If a subsequent Parliament, like Samson of old, shakes off the fetters and insists on passing an Act contrary to Clause 2—what then? Which Act of the sovereign Parliament is to prevail—Clause 2(4) or the subsequent Act, which, according to any normal constitutional doctrine, should prevail? That would be for the courts of the day to decide. Although the courts cannot modify an Act of Parliament where the intention of Parliament is clear, where there is doubt they must resolve it.
In attempting to resolve the doubt in which they would find themselves since, as Professor Wade has said, they would find themselves in a dilemma. They could uphold the words of subsection (4) at the expense of our constitutional doctrine that Parliament cannot bind its successors and that the later Act must prevail. There again, Professor Wade has put the position clearly in The Times:
Either the Bill's provision about future Acts is meaningless in any case of real conflict"—
that seems to be the argument so far as I can interpret it—
or else the Government is assuming that there will be a constitutional revolution of just the kind which it is at pains to deny.
The fact is that Clause 2(4) seeks to spell out and give express statutory effect to something which is implicit in entry to the Community on the terms of the Treaty of Rome, namely, the denial to future Parliaments of an essential part of our sovereignty. Under the terms of the Treaty of Rome, the commitment is in perpetuity without right of determination. To accept such a commitment is, in honour if not in law, to fetter a future Parliament. To accept it is, as I have been saying over the last decade or more, to impose an inescapable and unwelcome


dilemma. To withdraw, or seek to withdraw, after ratification will be a breach of an international obligation, but to deny to future Parliaments the right to withdraw will be a breach of constitutional principle.
That is the painful dilemma in which entry involves us. It is a classic dilemma of Sir Lancelot whose
…honour rooted in dishonour stood, And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true.
If Parliament does so, if it knowingly accepts the dilemma and its implications, it may be that the dilemma can be resolved only by successive Parliaments voluntarily accepting a restraint that cannot lawfully be imposed—refraining, in the interests of international obligation and the faith of the pledged word, from exercising the right open to them in principle, for open to them in theory and principle it undoubtedly would be. There is no constitutional method of taking it from them. Parliament can accept the restraint as a matter of policy or for the upholding of the sanctity of contract, but it cannot be imposed upon it. Yet the formal imposition of such a restraint, expressly fettering the rights of a future Parliament, is precisely what the subsection seeks to do—if it seeks to do anything at all, and we must assume that it does.
As such it is in my view misconceived in law, wrong in principle, revolutionary in effect and perhaps inoperable in practice. Therefore, I cannot, consonant with my duty to Parliament, consent to its enactment in the Bill.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I also wish to take up the middle words of the subsection, which will have such a revolutionary effect on our constitutional practice.
The first words of subsection (4) appear to give not only to Ministers but also to Government Departments the power to make law subject to the so-called safeguards in Schedule 2—the power to make law in areas which normally, according to our constitution, one would expect to be made by Act of Parliament. That power is, as I understand it, given to Ministers and Government Departments to make law by means of Statutory

Instruments and Orders in Council. I take this to be the effect of the first few words of the subsection. Where normally the law would be made by Statute it shall, subject to subsection (2), be made by negative Resolution; under the subsection a negative Resolution is sufficient to create new law.
We all know that a negative Resolution in the House becomes law without any debate at all, unless somebody prays against it. Even if there is a prayer against it, it is difficult, especially for back benchers, to find time to debate the matter. The effect of the first part of subsection (4)is to transfer power to the Executive to create law different from, and in a manner different from, what would normally be expected in this House. There would be no debate in the House, the matter would not go through a Committee, and would not go through the whole procedure of statutory enactment. Such law will now be able to be created by negative Resolution.
It is a salutary thought that under subsection (4) the head of a Government Department, by negative Resolution, could create a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment of up to two years. Schedule 2, which governs the whole package, refers only to criminal offences punishable by imprisonment in excess of two years. We are giving the Executive power to create a criminal offence involving imprisonment of up to two years by means of a negative Resolution which may never be debated in this House. Many of us feel that this is the kind of power which should not be given by the House to this Executive, or any Executive in future, whatever Government or party is in power. This is what the debate is all about.
The Government do not have to introduce provisions of this kind to subscribe to and join the Common Market. Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome does not require member States to enforce directives in this manner. The first part of subsection (4) and subsection (2) relate mainly to the enforcement of directives, because the regulations come under Clause 2(1) and are self-executing or self-enacting. We are concerned mainly about directives. Article 189 leaves it free to member States to determine their own methods as to how the directives are to


be translated into the law of the land of member countries.
There is no need for this procedure in order to take away, as subsection (4) seems to do, the right of Parliament to enforce a directive which may be of substantial importance. That right does not need to be taken from Parliament and conferred on the Executive by means of affirmative or negative Resolution. The Government in the opening words of the subsection are going much further than even the Treaty of Rome requires.
My reading of the Treaty of Rome leads me to believe that the people who framed the treaty were not greatly enamoured of democracy or of parliamentary representation. If they had been conscious of these matters they would never have drafted Article 189 in the way they did. But the present Government are prepared to go further by arrogating to themselves and to the Executive as much power as possible. They are determined to emasculate Parliament.
At least the opening words of the subsection fall in place when one reads them with subsection (2). However it is the middle words of the subsection, "any enactment" in line 40 down to the word "section" in line 43, which have the greater constitutional implication and, on the face of it, seem to have little connection with subsection (4) and subsection (2). Again one wonders why these words have been inserted in this position. They do not seems to fit in with the other words of the subsection.
First, one must look at the word "enactment". My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) said that in his view "enactment" might not be confined to an Act of Parliament. I do not know about that. There is authority for saying that "enactment" means a Statute but does not mean an Order in Council or Statutory Instrument. But, whatever the word means, clearly it means a Statute. It does not mean a Statute passed pursuant to the safeguards contained in Schedule 2. The draftsman has said specifically "any enactment". As a result of Schedule 2, we know that certain directives will have to be made binding in this country by means of Acts of Parliament.
However, the word "enactment" in subsection (4) goes much further. The draftsman says deliberately "any enactment", and he is referring to any future Statute passed in this House. Whatever else "enactment" means, he is referring to any Statute passed in future. Any Statute by implication will have effect subject to the provisions of the European Communities Act. Next year's Finance Act, whatever its provisions, whether they inadvertently or deliberately transgress any directives emanating from Brussels or any articles of the Treaty of Rome, will have effect subject to the provisions of this subsection of the European Communities Act.
The subsection is trying to fetter future Parliaments. The words are clear. The only question is why the draftsman tried to slip them into subsection (4), which on the face of it looks fairly innocuous. The draftsman is attempting to do something revolutionary. He is trying to prevent a future Parliament passing legislation which may be contrary to any Community law.
The next and more difficult question is whether the draftsman can succeed in doing that, and, assuming that we accept it, how far we shall fetter future Parliaments. I do not want to go into the argument about parliamentary sovereignty, but I have always understood the concept of sovereignty ultimately to be a legal one. Parliament can do what it likes. It can pass any Statute that it likes. But ultimately the question is whether the courts enforce that Statute. As I understand it, that is the true doctrine on which parliamentary sovereignty is based. It is a legal concept and not necessarily a political one.
If a later Act is passed which is contrary to any regulations emanating from Brussels under Clause 2(1), will that later Act prevail in our courts over this Act, given the words contained in the middle of subsection (4)? In other words, has the draftsman been able to create a fundamental Statute or an entrenched Clause which cannot be modified or changed by a future Parliament? In my opinion, if a future Act is passed which is contrary to certain directives, regulations or Articles of the treaty, the courts will enforce the present legislation as opposed to that later Act.
We ought to remember that we are not concerned solely with the rules of statutory interpretation adopted by the House of Lords. Looking further ahead to Clause 3(1), all these matters are to be determined according to principles laid down by the European Court. They will not be determined according to the principles which have been known to apply in English law. The highest court which will decide whether the later Act shall be enforced in preference to the present legislation will not be our House of Lords. That court will not be the supreme authority in these matters. In the end, this difficult question will be decided by the European Court. It is the European Court which will decide whether the later Act is to apply over the former. If we look at the case law of the European Court, there is little doubt that that court, by temperament quite apart from any of its previous decisions, will find in favour of the European Statute—in other words, this legislation—rather than any later attempt to overthrow it.
In respect of a future Statute which seeks to repeal part of the European Communities Act, given the new context in which we are operating and the fact that the European Court will be the final arbiter, I think that the draftsman has succeeded. If we pass this Clause, we shall fetter all future Parliaments in respect of a vast area of our law which is governed by the European Common Market.
The ultimate question is what happens if a future Statute decides to repeal the whole of Section 2(1). If we do that, that is the end of the matter, because the regulations cease to have effect. I do not presume to give an opinion, but I do not think that the answer is completely free from doubt. If it is, and the Government are happy that such a repeal would be effective in law, let the Solicitor-General tell us. The Government have said that there is no surrender of ultimate sovereignty. I believe that they have chosen the word "ultimate" deliberately. But let the Solicitor-General tell us, if a later Act seeks to repeal subsection (2), that the words of subsection (4) will not prevent that repeal from being effective.
As usual, this debate is not necessarily about joining the Common Market. It is about parliamentary control, about representative Government and about control

in this House of any legislation which becomes binding on the British people. Subsection (4) is not necessary for joining the Common Market, and I believe that it is in the interests of the pro-Marketeers rather than in those of the anti-Marketeers to ensure that the Common Market has a base of democratic control. If it does not have that base and if that base does not come from member States, the Common Market will not work. Its institutions will break down.
The Government, from the point of view of self-interest and of wanting to see this policy succeed, will not wish to emasculate argument and to arrogate to the Executive the powers that they are seeking in subsection (4).

[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Powell: This subsection is an extremely instructive one. I do not say that it is either luminous or, without considerable study, illuminating. But a study of it is rewarding and will enlighten us as to the reality of what we are doing in the Clause.
In effect, there are three parts to the subsection. The first relates to subsection (2). It is the part of the subsection which qualifies, or rather, extends as far as possible, the effect of subsection (2). Then there is the middle passage, to which most of the debate has so far been directed. It will be noted that this passage does not refer especially to subsection (2); indeed, it has much more relevance to subsection (1). Finally, at the end, after the favourite punctuation mark of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith); the semi-colon, we come back again to subsection (2), with a proviso affecting the Second Schedule.
I should like to take these three parts not in the order in which they stand in the Bill but first, the first part, then the end of the subsection, and finally the most important part, the central passage.
The first three lines extend as far as possible the power which can be exercised under subsection (2) by saying that, apart from the limitation in the Second Schedule, one can do anything of any extent which could be done by Act of Parliament. That takes us back over a great deal of ground which we have


covered in previous debates. In the debates on Clause 1, we were anxious to secure if possible Amendments, but, if not, assurances from the Government, that matters of importance would in future be dealt with by legislation and not by Orders in Council. We were unsuccessful.
We then considered Clause 2, particularly subsection (2). There again, we were anxious that, so far as possible, the proper procedures of legislation should be used in order to make new law in this country. We protested, as the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies) has just done, against the making of law of a major character, as could happen under subsection (2), merely by means of an Order in Council or a regulation.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, in a long passage in the debate on 24th May, sought to allay our anxieties. He was speaking of the use of subsection (2) when he said:
As new matters arise to be dealt with, the Government of the day will…have to decide whether to proceed by Statute…Nothing in the Bill prevents Parliament…from adopting what procedure it likes…".
He went on, even more strongly:
It must be left to the good sense of the Government of the day, bearing in mind that any Government is subject to the approval of the House.
Finally, he said very emphatically:
I cannot conceive of circumstances in which a future House of Commons would allow the Government arbitrarily to put into subordinate legislation what should be dealt with by statute."—[Official Report, 24th May, 1972; Vol. 837, c. 1505–6.]
If the words in this subsection mean anything, they are a permission, and, therefore, an encouragement, to a future Administration to do exactly what my right hon. and learned Friend said was not the intention.
My right hon. and learned Friend said that he could not "conceive of circumstances" in which a future House of Commons would tolerate a Government putting into subordinate legislation what should be dealt with by Statute. Now, two allotted days in Committee later, he asks the House itself to insert words in the Bill which say, quite unnecessarily

and superfluously, ex abundanti, that one can do under subsection (2) anything whatsoever of any extent that one could do by an Act of Parliament.
I am not accusing my right hon. and learned Friend of seeking to revoke his assurances; but what I wish to make clear to the Committee is the practical importance of this subsection if it passes unamended. It means that, in future, any Government will be able to come to the Dispatch Box with a regulation. When hon. Members say that it is not something that should be done by regulation, that there should be a Bill which can be amended, considered, and reconsidered—perhaps even in a Report stage, although that may have gone out of fashion by then—the Government will say "You have not considered Section 2(4) of the European Communities Act, 1972. That specifically provides that one can do anything under subsection (2) that one can do by Act of Parliament". One can almost write the Minister's speech for him. He would say: "What otherwise would be the point of those words? The Government are fulfilling the intentions of the House, and now hon. Members are inviting us to fly in the face of its deliberately expressed intention."
That is the effect of these words. They are not innocent or ineffective in a practical sense. Of course it can be argued that they are ineffective in the sense that they do not prevent a future Government from doing by Statute what they can do under subsection (2); but they are the most open invitation, which no Government could decline, to do by regulation or Order in Council things which should be done by Statute.
One can imagine the dialogues in the Legislation Committee of Cabinet between the Patronage Secretary and the Leader of the House and some Minister who perhaps had twinges of parliamentary conscience. When the Minister said that a matter was important enough to warrant legislation or that he was a little uneasy about doing it by regulation, the Patronage Secretary, well briefed, would turn up subsection (4) and ask what the point of it is if not to avoid the necessity of a Government ever having to do by Act of Parliament what they can do by regulation or Order in Council.
Therefore, we have the Chancellor of the Duchy on our side. If he cannot conceive of a House of Commons which would allow these things to be done by Order in Council rather than by legislation, then he himself, now that the significance of this is pointed out, will be the first to support the Amendment and wish to remove these words, which are a standing inducement to a breach of the undertaking that he gave to the Committee.
So much for the first portion of this subsection, on which I think we shall have unanimity.
I come now to the last part, which is not strictly covered by the group of Amendments which we are considering. Nevertheless, I hope that you will agree, Sir Myer, that we should consider the subsection as a whole. For the interpretation of the parts specifically covered by the Amendment is appreciably helped by the words at the end of the subsection, after the word "but".
The Committee realises—though we shall be debating this in more detail later—that Schedule 2 contains the safeguards. Despite the words to which I have just been addressing myself, Schedule 2 as it stands prevents certain things from being done by Order in Council or by regulation under Clause 2 (2).
Obviously, under the doctrine of the unimpaired sovereignty of Parliament—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) and others will hasten to point this out—in a future Session of this Parliament, or a future Parliament, we can come back and amend the Second Schedule. So it was not necessary to include the words
except as may be provided by any Act passed after this Act.
I see that I have the assent of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sonuthport. Those are supererogatory words because without those words an Act passed "after this Act" could reduce or extend the safeguard contained in Schedule 2. Nevertheless, for some reason those words are there. This has been a very carefully considered Bill. The drafting has been gone over and over, I assume, with a fine-toothed comb. If there were no point in those words, long before the Bill came to be printed and

presented to the House they would have been removed. I assume that they have some point. I assume that someone said, "It will be convenient in the future if we have got those words in." In what circumstances would it be convenient to have words in a Statute saying that one can alter Schedule 2 by a subsequent Act?
I now put the two cases I have in mind to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. Was it the idea that the protection in Schedule 2 should be extended, or was it the idea that the protection in Schedule 2 should be reduced? Whoever drafted this or whoever agreed to this insertion had it in mind that it might well be desired to modify Schedule 2 and that it would be just as well, when that moment came, to be able to say to the House of Commons "This was expressly provided for in the parent Act by the words in Section 2(4)."I want to know in which direction it is anticipated that it may be desired to amend the effect of Schedule 2. Is it the idea of the Government—if so, we shall be very glad to hear it—that it may be desirable in future to strengthen Schedule 2, to take more and more matters out of the purview of Clause 2(2), so that more and more matters have to be dealt with by Act of Parliament? That is the effect of reducing the scope of Schedule 2. If that is the intention, that will be some relief to members of the Committee. But it is very difficult to square with the rest of this Clause an intention in the future to amend the Act in such a way as further to limit the scope of Clause 2(2).
I am afraid, therefore, it appears to me more probable that the only intention of those words is to make it easier than it otherwise would be to limit, reduce or abrogate altogether the protection in Schedule 2. I repeat—this will bring me to the last and central part of the subsection—that without those words it would still be possible to do it; but the words are there for a purpose. They are there in order to make it easier to do it, in order to have something to appeal to. I fear that the intention there is in accordance with the rest of the intention in this subsection, to open the way to a further limitation of the legislative processes of the House of Commons.
After all, one can see how it could happen. How inconvenient, especially


with the progress of inflation, it might be to have such figures as
a fine of more than £400".
How inconvenient if in a few years' time we found we had to legislate just because a fine of over £400 was involved. How much better if the irritating and unnecessary limitation in paragraph 1(1)(d) of the Schedule could be removed. When that day came, the Minister in charge would point out that something of this sort was envisaged, because a pointer had been put in by the House of Commons in Clause 2(4) of the Bill.
5.15 p.m.
This leads us to the significance of the central portion of the subsection, which says
any enactment passed or to be passed…shall…have effect subject"—
here I substitute "subject to subsection (1)". [Interruption.] It does apply to the rest of the Clause as well but the business end is subsection (1). Putting this the other way round, it means that no enactment is to be made, or, if it is made, it is not to have effect, to the extent that it is in conflict with anything which happens as a result of Clause 2(1) or with any laws, etc., which are in force as a result of Clause 2(1).
I have a qualification to add to that. Here I come to meet my hon. Friends who have returned to the doctrine of the omni competence of Parliament, and I draw the opposite conclusion to that of the hon. Member for Llanelly in his last point. I think that an Act of Parliament which expressly said either that "Clause 2(4) shall not have effect for the purposes of this Act" or, "Notwithstanding anything in Clause 2(4) of the European Communities Act", would probably override this subsection as it stands. However, the practical effect is that unless a future Statute expressly amends for the purpose or expressly repeals this subsection, then, automatically and whether or not anybody knows it at the time when they are passing future legislation, it will be overridden by the consequences of Clause 2(1) or, indeed, of anything else in this Clause.
This is where one sees the importance in the debate of the Amendment tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). My

hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen, though he is a supporter of the principle of membership of the Community, considers it unsatisfactory that there should be a concealed conflict of jurisdiction, that there should be an avoidable unclarity in our law. If I may, for the purposes of my argument, anticipate what I think will be his, he says that as a result of this subsection there will often be an unresolved conflict between what the House of Commons may do and the consequences of Clause 2(1), and that it is better that we should know, here and now, where we stand. Indeed, this was the significance of the portion of the article by the learned professor quoted both by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) and by my right hon. and learned Friend for Hertfordshire, East, when they pointed to the fact that it would be the courts rather than the House of Commons which would be adjudicating in future upon the sovereignty of Parliament, because any such unresolved conflict would be thrown up to be dealt with either by the courts in this country or ultimately by the European Court. So I am with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen in this, when I say that we had better have it written onto the face of the Bill. If we are saying that Statutes passed by the House of Commons are to be overridden where they conflict with law coming into effect under Clause 2(1), let us say so and look it in the face.
But there is an even deeper sense in which these central words bring us up against the conflict between the Bill and the sovereignty of Parliament. The sovereignty of Parliament has been a theme running through these debates. I have no intention of being drawn into what I consider the arid area of disagreement between the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) and some of his hon. Friends at earlier stages in our debates. Nobody disputes that there could be political circumstances in which the House would exercise its power—and if it would exercise it, could exercise it—to cancel this Act of Parliament or to alter any part of it. There always is, in a sense, albeit a contradiction in terms, a right of revolution. There is always a power to break an agreement if one can get away with doing so. In that sense, of course, though it is a sense devoid of practical content,


the sovereignty of Parliament is unaffected and cannot be affected by this legislation. But we are not concerned with the theoretical effect; we are concerned with practice; we are concerned with what it will be possible for those who succeed us in this place to do, and with what it will be possible for them to do as a result of the form in which we are choosing to draw the Bill.
In membership of the EEC there is at any rate a potential practical conflict with the sovereignty of Parliament in that to be a member of a continuing and politically-developing economic community places upon all the members of that community constraints, however they discharge them, to behave in a common manner, even in partial disregard of local and national wishes. In that sense it is true that those who support entry, in this legislative form or any other, are deliberately accepting—indeed, are commending—an abrogation of the sovereignty of Parliament.
But, that admitted, I do not believe that these Amendments should be dealt with in that light. I believe they should be favourably considered by hon. and right hon. Members who are in favour of British membership of the Community. It is significant that in the group of Amendments we are discussing there is one which stands in the names of a number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have declared themselves in favour of the principle of British membership. Nevertheless, they tabled Amendment No. 8, because they baulked precisely at this part of the subsection.
It was not necessary that the House should be presented with this explicit expression of the overriding of a later Act of Parliament by the consequences of an earlier Act of Parliament. Subsection (4) is the consequence of what the Government chose to do in Clause 2(1). Subsection (4) is no more necessary than subsection (1) for the purposes of British membership of the European Community. The Government have admitted that there are alternatives to the method adopted in Clause 2(1). They have admitted that, on a whole series of matters which will be dealt with under Clause 2(1) and (2), they would have legislated as they are legislating in the later Clauses of the Bill. The practical

point—and it is a point which I believe can and should draw together members from all parts of the Committee—is that if we were proceeding in this Bill by the alternative and proper legislative method subsection (4) would not be necessary.
If the changes which are to be brought about in our law were brought about as they are in the later Clauses, if the sort of Bill had been introduced which we understand was in the minds of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen of the Opposition, if the sort of Bill had been introduced which was specifically referred to as practicable by the Prime Minister when he wound up on Second Reading, then, of course, Clause 2 would not appear in its present form and we would not be seeking to give that legislation priority over subsequent legislation.
The Act of usurpation implicit in the form of Clause 2(1) is the cause of the usurpation explicit in Clause 2(4). We find, therefore, that we are criticising not the principle of membership of the Community but the manner in which it is proposed to achieve it. Once again, as we have said so often, the debate on these Amendments is not for or against the Community. It is for or against good parliamentary practice. It is for or against the rights and powers of this House. If the Bill had been in proper parliamentary form, it would have meant—and this is how it should be—that in future when new law has to be made as the Community develops, in each case the House of Commons would have to be called upon to consider what it was being asked to do. It would have had to take into account the effects that membership of the Community entailed; but it would have done so as a House of Commons and as a House of Parliament, and it would have done so as a House responsible to the electorate. We can still have that sort of Bill, the sort of Bill which upon any view we ought to have. The way to get it is to accept the Amendments.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Brynmor John: I believe the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was right to uncover the double threat to Parliament in the subsection. Not only is it a matter of the sovereignty of Parliament but it is also, in the first few lines of the subsection, a threat to the


content of consideration by this Parliament; in other words, the way in which the Government lay before us their intention, and the scrutiny to which this Parliament can subject that evidence of intention. I believe that the inclination of any Executive will be irresistible to put it in a way which truncates parliamentary debate to the maximum.
If we needed any reassurance of that it is the extent to which the Government Front Bench has wriggled upon the question of a Report stage, refusing to adopt even the most reasonable and necessary Amendment in order to preserve its position intact so that it might not even have to sacrifice another couple of days on consideration of the Bill. With that precedent in mind, who can doubt that any future Executive will draw its legislation with the sign and call of the Patronage Secretary, in the way which is most convenient to it and not in a way which is most conducive to good order and good scrutiny by Parliament. That is the first way in which I believe the subsection poses a threat to Parliament.
The second way has already been mentioned. It concerns the inclusion in the subsection of any enactment which has been passed or will be passed; in other words, an attempt by the Government to fetter future Parliaments as to the type of legislation they may enact. Since most of our complaints on the Bill have been about the extreme brevity of our dis-cusssions and about the conciseness of the language involved, I would have thought the most absurd argument yet advanced by pro-Marketeers is that adduced by the interventions during the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), that these words are used unnecessarily and that they are useless.
Whatever else is clear in the Bill, it is that the man who drafted it and the Solicitor-General did not include anything other than that which is strictly necessary to give effect to their intentions. Therefore, we can reject the argument that these words do not really mean anything. They mean precisely what they are intended to mean. They are an attempt to fetter, to bind, to limit the sovereignty of a future Parliament to give effect to its will in the climate of the time.
As a convoy moves at the speed of its slowest ship, it is necessary to revert to the argument about sovereignty, which we have had many times but which some Conservative Members do not appear to have understood. There is a difference between sovereignty, the everyday customary exercise of sovereignty as it has been known to this Parliament, and ultimate sovereignty, which Ministers are careful to say remains to this country. Of course, ultimate sovereignty remains to this country. Ultimately Parliament may enact a Measure which sweeps away all the restrictions upon us. But that is merely the ultimate sovereignty, the ultimate power, to break with the Community. It is no other power, and it can and will be used only when this country believes it is no longer of advantage to be in the Common Market.
Short of that, all sorts of pressures will be put upon us. A future Parliament will be told "We know your case on this is right, but do not exercise the power in this instance because that will only rock the boat. See how many advantages we have from being members of the Community—the wider market, the dynamic", which may even have started by then. At all stages pressures will be put upon us as legislators not to exercise our sovereignty for fear that it will upset the balance, for fear that it will upset the international organisation into which we shall have gone. The real answer is that we shall retain the sovereignty of Parliament only so long as we do not choose to exercise it.
What was said earlier today was that no Parliament is completely fettered, that it can walk out of the Community and enact what it likes. There is a disease known as agrophobia, the fear of open spaces. Nothing binds the sufferer to the room in which he is other than the thought that there is something terrible beyond. At any moment he could open the door and walk the streets a free man, but because of his mental condition he chooses never to exercise that freedom.
If we enact the subsection, future legislators will have a sort of legislative agrophobia. They will have the theoretical possibility of exercising their power, but they will always be afraid to exercise it for fear of upsetting our colleagues, for fear of breaking the alliance. Unless we are prepared to do that we shall not


exercise the power. The subsection, when it says
passed or to be passed
will bind future Parliaments, and it is idle for Conservative Members to pretend otherwise.
I diffidently part from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West on the effect of overriding the subsection. Certainly I think that a future Act could expressly provide that the provisions of the subsection were not to take effect for that Act. But for the first time, as a result of our membership of the Common Market, we have a constitutional court which is set above Parliament, which is to consider whether any member State has in its own domestic legislation breached the Treaty of Rome, which alone is sacrosanct to that court. Therefore, whereas a Parliament may say "We shall not do that in a future Act", the European obligation would exist independently of the enactment.
In any event, as the Italian electricity case shows, domestic legislation which is in conflict with the Treaty of Rome will be interpreted by the European Court in such a way as to maintain the supremacy of that treaty. Therefore, whereas we could override the present intention of subsection (4), in effect the European Court would make sure we did not go too far.
The subsection says "subject to Schedule 2". We are given a great apparent concession by Schedule 2, which says that certain powers are excluded from the provisions of the subsection and cannot be imposed other than by enactment. Taxation and the power to create new criminal offences are among the matters covered. But there is power to create new criminal offences punishable by imprisonment of not more than two years or by a fine of not more than £200. That is a great breach of civil liberties. It is idle for the Solicitor-General to say, as he has in many debates, that the criminal law of this country will never be altered, that we are not derogating in any way from our criminal law. We have the imposition of criminal offences which carry fairly heavy penalties without the necessity of enactment in this House, with only the most cursory examination. Therefore, so far from being a concession, this is a way of giving the Executive a further power to affect

people's lives and freedom in a way in which adequate consideration by the House is precluded.
It has been the boast of the House of Commons that on behalf of the freedom of subjects in this country it has traditionally exercised such a power. If that is to be given away it is no good presenting the provision to the Committee as if it is a triumph, an extra concession wrung from an unwilling organisation for the protection of the House. It is a derogation of the traditional powers of the House. Therefore, the Solicitor-General should immediately retract the suggestion that the criminal law is not being altered. European offences will take effect against subjects of this country with no more than the briefest scrutiny of the House, when we can bring such scrutiny out of an unwilling Government.
It would be much better to maintain the traditional way of bringing into existence obligations in this country by the passage of Acts of Parliament, which alone gives the House the adequate right not only to listen to general statements upon Second Reading but to give detailed consideration to a Measure in Committee. We should have had no idea of anything but a fraction of the meaning of the Bill before us but for the Committee stage. It is only since we began our detailed scrutiny in Committee that many of the most obscure points have emerged.
If the Government are truly of the mind that any future enactment can be put before the House freely, can stand on its own feet and be looked at honestly, they should abandon the shabby pretence in the subsection and go back to the traditional and still the best and most effective way of passing such obligations into our law; namely, that of enactment.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The shape of these debates is very odd. We have four, five, perhaps six speeches from anti-Marketeers to set one off. We then have a few nit-picking points by myself, who am enthusiastic for the cause but not so enthusiastic for the method. We then have another speech by an anti-Marketeer, and it is not until then that the young lions, or perhaps I should call them the young toreadors, behind me have a chance of getting to the meat.

Mr. Anthony Fell: I remind my hon. and learned Friend that


there are no young toreadors for Amendment No. 8 on the benches opposite as far as I know.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I am not attributing blame or cause or anything, just pointing to the fact, lest the public should get the impression that a five or six to one majority against the Bill prevails in this Committee.
I am disenchanted by some of the modalities, as we shall have to learn to call these things, in the Bill. I am in favour of subsection (4). I do not think that it is wrong. I just think that it is not enough and that in particular the middle passage is so short as to give the judges no guidance at all on what is going to be an extremely difficult task of conciliation and reconciliation. To say that this vast corpus of continental law
…shall be construed and have effect…
when it impinges upon the equally vast corpus of Commonwealth statute law, both as regards difficulties of time and as regards difficulties of place, is to my mind insufficient. It owes more to considerations of diplomacy than to considerations of law.
My Amendment No. 183 would bring the issue more specifically to a reality—the issue of the extent to which Acts of the House of Commons subsequent to regulations or decisions of the organs of the Community prevail over those regulations and decisions. It is a difficult problem, and I have sought to spell out the way it should be tackled—that is, that where an Act specifically says that it is flying in the face of Community regulations and decisions, the judges should be told that the Act is to prevail. I think that that is the sense of the Committee on both sides. However, it is where there is no such specific mention in an Act that I think the problem really arises—the problem of where, either by inadvertence or perhaps by cunning, the House of Commons has flown in the face of some Community decision or regulation. What is the poor judge to do then? Therefore I spell out in my Amendment that the judge is to observe the Community's decision. That I believe is the reality of the position.
Objection may be made to stating in express terms that the House of Commons may in future decide not to follow a

decision or regulation of a Community organ on the ground that it is a very bad diplomatic thing for a country which is just going into the Community to make express provision for its coming out again. I follow the diplomatic objection to that, although it has less bearing after M. Lipkowski has said that he does not regard the Six as an organisation from which it is impossible to resign. It no longer seems so large a diplomatic blunder to put in such words as I suggest. However, wiser heads than mine object to it. But I would like to point out to the Government only two of the burdens and difficulties that are being placed upon our judiciary—and there are many more—by these small and innocuous words in lines 40 to 43 in subsection (4).
5.45 p.m.
A suggestion which has been canvassed today is that it is not so much the difficulty of the big bang—for example, the defence of the Community by the House, and I myself do not think there is any legal difficulty about that—as of the small day to day problems. What is the poor judge to do when he sees a subsequent Statute, accepted by both Houses of Parliament, assented to by the Sovereign and printed in the normal way with all that authority, which he thinks conflicts, and quite seriously conflicts—and he may not be able to reconcile the two or get out of the difficulty—with some decision, say, of the Commission or some regulation of the Community? Unless the guidance is spelt out stronger than the words,
…shall be construed and have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this section…",
which is a very difficult and obscure formula, he is bound to take the plain words of the Statute and prefer them even when in my opinion he should not.

Mr. Powell: My hon. and learned Friend will also agree that such a Community law might be law made subsequently to a Statute.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Certainly. I think the judge is in grave difficulty over both the previous law and the subsequent law.
It is not only a question of regulations. It is not only those strong instruments or regulations dealt with in subsection (1). The judge does not even know, for example, about directives which have not yet been translated into legislation by the


House. It is generally assumed that until such directives have been translated into legislative form—whether by Order in Council or by Statute I do not pause to inquire—they have no effect on our courts. If that is right, it is totally contrary to the Belgian precedent. Ministerial acts of the Belgian Government, acts of a fairly fundamental kind, have been held by the Belgian courts to be null and void because they conflicted with directives which had not yet been translated into Belgian legislation but which nevertheless illustrated the policy of Community law.
What is the judge to do when such cases come before him in six months' time? This is a matter which our judges are going to have upon their shoulders very soon in the span of legal life. The Bill puts the burden clearly on the shoulders of the judges and gives them completely insufficient guidance on what to do.
My second point may be considered remote, although I think it is important. It concerns the execution of judgments. Very often the most important part of a judgment lies not so much in its being pronounced by the lips of a judge but in its execution—how it is to be carried out.
Here is an example of an occasion when the judges of this country will find themselves in great difficulties. The decisions—I am using that word in its technically correct sense, I think; that is, the judgments of the Council, of the Commission and of the European Court, which act inter partes; that is, are directed against an individual or corporation—are directly enforceable in member countries. That is in Article 187 of the Treaty of Rome as regards the Court and Article 192 of the Treaty as regards the Council or the Commission. The imposition of obligations on persons other than States may be in other forms of execution than pecuniary obligations. Hon. Members may know that in this country when there is a writ of execution it is possible to go to a judge and ask for modification. If the party is dead the personal representatives can go along; if the company is in liquidation all sorts of considerations apply. There is relief under the writ of fi fa. All sorts of things can be done even though there has been a writ of execution addressed to a particular person.

Will a person seeking relief from a directly enforceable execution of the Luxembourg Court or of the Commission or the Council be entitled to go to a Queen's judge and ask for relief? What is the judge to do? Is he to say "No, I cannot give you relief because this is a European judgment even though the writ of execution has been issued in the Queen's name and addressed to the Queen's officers. I cannot give you the relief which the Sovereign would or could give you in almost every other case?" I do not think the judge could. I may be right or wrong, but I instance this because I believe that the judges ought to be told. It is not enough in these cases to say that previous enactments dealing with orders of the Supreme Court, Orders Nos. 46 and 47, or subsequent legislation, if those happen to be amended,
shall be construed and have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this section",
that is, with the authorised form which the Council, the Commission and the Luxembourg Court may have instituted.
Is our judge to say "No, you must go back to the Council or the Commission or the European Court. I cannot give you the ordinary relief against execution even though the writ of execution runs in the Queen's name?" That may be right or wrong; I do not know. All I can say is that there is no provision that I can see in this legislation or subsequently to tell the unfortunate judge what he has to do. That is the burden of my complaint against the modality of these seven or eight words. They really are too fragile a vessel to contain the enormous amount of liquid involved, and of which I approve, in wedding together Community law and British common and Statute law.

Sir Gilbert Longden: I rise only to redress the balance because I shall say nothing that has not been said before, and much better said, but it is a coincidence that most of the speeches so far have been by the hon. Members who are known in parliamentary shorthand as anti-Marketeers. They have naturally supported these Amendments because they cannot swallow the prospect of any abrogation of the sovereignty of the House of Commons. I appreciate their point of view but I do not share it. By a large majority the House has decided


to join the European Economic Community, on known terms which have been negotiated by the Government.

Mr. Neil Marten: With respect, the terms were known only in January. My hon. Friend referred to "known terms". When we had the Division on the known terms it was won not by a large majority but only by eight.

Sir Gilbert Longden: The House decided on the principle of entering the Community by a very large majority. It must have known in so deciding that there would necessarily be considerable abrogation of its sovereignty. It could not possibly have done so if it had thought otherwise. It follows that the House by that large majority, with its eyes open, is agreeable to accepting the prospect.
There are many reasons for our so doing which have been spelled out by many hon. Members, and it would be both tedious and out of order for me to repeat them now. Suffice it to say that the majority of people believe that we should on balance gain more than we should lose. We do not abrogate sovereignty to a bunch of faceless bureaucrats in Brussels. We shall cede part of our sovereignty over certain of our affairs to a democratically elected European Parliament in which we shall have a powerful voice and in which, should any proposal be made which we consider would infringe a vital national interest, we shall have a veto. That is appreciated by Amendment No. 426. We also know, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) has quoted, along with others, that a later Statute passed by the House may repeal an earlier one, that each Parliament is unaffected by what its predecessors have done.
The last part of this Clause expressly envisages subsequent Acts which may amend this Measure. Why, therefore, asks my right hon. and learned Friend, put the words in at all? The answer surely is because they express the present intention of the Government, as do all Acts of Parliament if they are not amended. I shall therefore oppose the Amendments.

Sir John Foster: It might be helpful if the Committee examined subsection (4) in the light of the constitutional conventions. It is well known that the English legal system has avoided a clash in certain matters, for instance between Parliament and the Executive and over the forcing of a Roman Catholic priest to reveal the extent of his confessions. One of the rules of construction which the English legal system has used to prevent a breach of international law is to say that the courts will not interpret any provision of an Act as conducive to a breach of international law. This deals with the judge in the dilemma to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) has referred. Subsection (4) reinforces that convention because it says in the early part that subsequent Acts should be interpreted in accordance with the European Communities Bill. Therefore, there will be no suggestion to the judge that this Measure is being infringed.
6.0 p.m.
There are people who believe that the sovereignty of Parliament is not absolute. Mr. J. W. Gough wrote an interesting book called "Fundamental Law in the English Constitutional History". I do not subscribe to that view. A subsequent Act says that notwithstanding anything in subsection (4) of this Clause of the Bill, we hereby do so and so. The sovereignty of Parliament would obtain.
It is to be noticed that it is not the first time that we have entered into treaties of this kind. The European Comission of Human Rights has power to override the provisions of English Acts of Parliament and judicial decisions. If we passed an Act of Parliament saying that no Roman Catholics could marry and that Jews could not marry Christians, we would very soon find that the European Commission of Human Rights would order the English State to abrogate that provision of an Act of Parliament. An individual affected by an Act could petition the European Court of Human Rights and get an order from that court ordering the British Government to abrogate that provision.
Some people believe that even if an Act of Parliament sets out in terms that no Protestant can marry a Roman Catholic, the courts would disregard the English parliamentary provision of the Statute


and say that the solemn commitment or the English Government through a treaty, having subscribed to the European Commission of Human Rights, should obtain and the English Statute should be disregarded.
I do not subscribe to that view. However, it shows that there is an area of debate on this attitude of sovereignty and subsection (4). The short answer is that it merely reinforces this canon of construction in English courts. It enables the judge to say with more force than he usually does when the principles of international law are put forward, "I construe the subsequent Act as not invalidating any provision of the European Communities Bill."

Mr. John: Surely the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir .J. Foster) will accede to the proposition that what Clause 2(4) says is that a subsequent Act will be read in the light of previously passed domestic pieces of legislation and not international law. Subsection (4) says that any Act subsequently passed will be read in the light of this Act. It is a domestic Act.

Sir J. Foster: This Measure is implementing international law because it is implementing the treaty agreement with the European Communities countries. In effect, the Bill is saying that any subsequent Act shall be construed as agreeing with the treaty commitments of the British Government.

Mr. John: Does not that beg the argument, which has been adduced many times in Committee, that the Bill in the form and manner in which it is drawn goes much further than is necessary to implement any treaty obligations arising out of our accession to the Community? It is a domestic law binding future Parliaments and not an international obligation.

Sir J. Foster: The hon. Member depends on the premise that the Bill goes further than our obligations under the treaty. I do not think it does. Its purpose is to implement the treaty. Subsection (4) says that any subsequent legislation must be construed as agreeing with it.
I belong to that school of thought, which is pretty general in the House of Commons, that if subsequent legislation said:

And notwithstanding what we have agreed with other countries, we will do so and so,
the sovereignty of Parliament would obtain. There is a school of thought Which does not agree with that view. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen said, the answer is a kind of political argument.
One cannot imagine a Government solemnly passing legislation through the House which they intend to be in breach of their treaty obligations. That is why much of the debate on the Amendments has been unreal. If one wanted to abrogate the treaty, that would have to be done by a declaration or a negotiation with the other countries. It would be within the framework of our obligation under international law to pass legislation which paid attention to the amendment or abrogation of the Common Market Treaty.
It is unreal to imagine that a subsequent Government will start their attack on the European Community by bringing in legislation which is inconsistent with their treaty obligations. It is also unreal to imagine that we would pass a law that people can be put into prison arbitrarily. We would soon find ourselves in the difficulty of facing a petition to the European Court of Human Rights. There would be an order to the British Government to repeal that legislation and to release those imprisoned.
That abrogation of sovereignty, if one likes to call it that, was done years ago. Nobody objected because the whole temper of the country was agreeing with the object that there should not be an infringement of human rights in this country. However, this matter is much more controversial. Therefore, the people who object to the Common Market have sought to say, quite wrongly, that Parliament should have the right to bring in legislation in breach of their treaty obligations.
For those reasons the arguments against the Amendments are founded on unreality because of the premise that the Government of the day will bring in legislation against their treaty obligations. We have always to go back to the treaty obligations first. We must assume that Governments will bring in only legislation which is in accordance with our obligations.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The Amendments which the Committee has been debating, as the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) pointed out when he opened the debate, enable us to analyse closely the provisions of subsection (4) because between them they would secure the removal of the whole subsection. I will expound to the Committee why the subsection is a necessary provision, which is included in the Bill for good and sufficient reasons, and explain what its effect is and why it is necessary.
Apart from the three Amendments which seriatim eliminate the subsection, there are two others before it, one being Amendment No. 8 which would have been spoken to by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), in respect of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) spoke, regarding the insertion of certain words in line 41 on page 3.Then there are the important pair of Amendments, Nos. 182 and 183, to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) has spoken and which have certainly enabled the Committee to see more clearly the factors which are built into subsection (4). I shall, I hope, be able to satisfy my hon. and learned Friend that his two Amendments would not represent an improvement on the Clause as it now stands. [Interruption.] I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) should be so astonished by the approach which I seek to adopt. I may not be as successful in his eyes as in the eyes of some of my hon. Friends, but I shall seek to fulfil my responsibility.

Mr. Fell: I was only slightly amused at the fact that the Solicitor-General was saying these things to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) with his hands tied rigidly behind his back.

The Solicitor-General: I will explain the matter shortly and deal in a little more length with the matters hon. Members have raised. First, I will deal with the three limbs of subsection (4). The first limb, the first four lines of which would be removed by Amendment No. 420, indicates that subsection (2) could

be used where necessary and appropriate for the purposes and the effect of repealing or amending Acts of Parliament. I shall explain why, in the context of the Bill, that is not only acceptable, but manifestly necessary, notwithstanding what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said about that proposition.
The second part of subsection (4), which is sought to be removed by Amendments Nos. 420, 313 and 182, provides, so far as it constitutionally may be achieved—I shall come back to that point—that directly applicable Community law, that which is given effect by subsection (1), should prevail over conflicting provisions of Acts of Parliament. That is a necessary fulfilment of a Community obligation expressly foreshadowed by the 1967 White Paper.
The third part of the subsection, from line 43 onwards—sought to be removed, perhaps unintentionally, by Amendment No. 182—is the enacting provision for Schedule 2 with the safeguards therein contained. No one would wish to see that part of the subsection removed. The hon. and learned Member for Leith tended to suggest that it was in the wrong place. I cannot follow the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument about that. At all events, it is expressly linked to Schedule 2 and is effective to the extent that is necessary.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and other hon. Members inquired closely about the significance and reason for the presence, in lines 43 and 44 at the beginning of the third limb, of the words,
except as may be provided by any Act passed after this Act".
There are two principal reasons for the presence of those words. First, we see that Schedule 2 is referred to in the opening words of subsection (2), which says.
Subject to Schedule 2 to this Act".
The middle limb of subsection (4) requires any future enactment to be
construed and have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this section",
which could include the opening words of subsection (2). It might be argued that a subsequent Statute was inhibited by the middle limb of subsection (4) from making


any variation in Schedule 2. Therefore, the first function of those words is to make it plain that
any Act passed after this Act
can vary the provisions of Schedule 2. It makes it possible for the provisions of Schedule 2 to be varied either upwards or downwards.
Secondly, and perhaps more important, this part of the subsection makes it plain that any variation in Schedule 2 would require an Act of Parliament. If those words were not there, some hon. Members might have suggested that an order under Clause 2(2) could be used to vary the provisions of the safeguards contained in the Schedule. This is to make it plain that the Schedule can be varied only by an "Act pased after this Act". I hope that is sufficient explanation for those words being in the subsection.
I do not intend to say anything more about the third limb, because that was the only controversy about it.
I agree with right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who described the first limb as important. Of course it is. I have explained that it contains the power—this was made clear by my right hon. and learned Friend on Second Reading and certainly during our early discussions on Clause 2—to make variations and amendments in and repeals of Acts of Parliament as well as in subordinate legislation. I ask the Committee to conclude that it is a necessary and sensible provision because a number of regulations and directives with which we may have to comply would be of a kind suitable for subordinate legislation. A number of regulations and directives may involve the necessity for consequential changes in United Kingdom Statutes, some of them major and significant, others of small and minor significance. It is therefore sensible, in the interests of Parliament, that consequential changes of a small, minor and insignificant kind in the United Kingdom Statutes should be capable of being effected by orders made under Clause 2(2).
The power to vary the provisions of a Statute by Statutory Instrument is not unprecedented. It is not unique, as the hon. and learned Member for Leith said. Nevertheless it is necessary to acknowledge that it is important in the context of the Bill.

[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair.]

6.15 p.m.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West quoted my right hon. and learned Friend on this matter on 24th May and sought, I thought somewhat unjustly, to diminish and eliminate the significance of what he said. My right hon. and learned Friend said:
As new matters arise to be dealt with, the Government of the day will…have to decide whether to proceed by statute.…It is obviously reasonable that we should adopt a flexible attitude.…It must be left to the good sense of the Government of the day, bearing in mind that any Government is subject to the approval of the House. I cannot conceive of circumstances in which a future House of Commons would allow the Government arbitrarily to put into subordinate legislation what should be dealt with by statute.

I emphasise the words in the last part of that sentence. They are not to be discounted and set aside as my right hon. Friend sought to do. The House of Commons would certainly express itself and bring effective pressure to bear on the Government. I have no doubt that argument would be heard from Patronage Secretaries and others in the opposite sense, but it is idle to pretend that what my right hon. and learned Friend was saying was of no significance.

In the next sentence, which my right hon. Friend did not quote, my right hon. and learned Friend said:
Whatever view one takes of what is or is not a major change, there is no difference of opinion on either side of the Committee that some changes are on any view suitable for subordinate legislation.—[Official Report, 24th May, 1972; Vol. 837, c. 1505–7.]

It is to provide a power which can be used for changes of that kind that the provisions in the first limb of subsection (4) are necessary.

Mr. Powell: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for what he has said. I expressly said I was not seeking to derogate from or cast doubt upon the intentions and assurances of my right hon. and learned Friend. But, even more after what my hon. and learned Friend has said, one is faced by the extremely broad, indeed maximum, words in this limb of the subsection which appear to go


far beyond the reason which my hon. and learned Friend gave for it. After all, there are many formulae for consequential and minor Amendments. If that was necessary—that is the only point my hon. and learned Friend made—it is not beyond the powers of drafting to limit it to that. The difficulty is that this is apparently deliberately drawn as wide as possible.

The Solicitor-General: It is drawn alongside the remaining provisions of the rest of the Bill. This is the important factor which I had not finished mentioning. The fact that all the necessary changes in our existing Statutes that the Government have identified as being necessary are given effect to in the second part of the Bill and the Schedules stands as an earnest of the way the matter would be approached. It is difficult to see why it would be in the interests of Parliament, when we came upon subsequent changes that might be necessary which could be subject to the ordinary scrutiny of delegated legislation, to commit subsequent Parliaments to the scrutiny of every one of those in the ordinary legislative process. If that were required, it would in the long run serve to impair, not to preserve, the effectiveness of parliamentary control.
Regarding the second limb, on which most of our discussion has concentrated, there has been a certain ambiguity on both sides of the Committee about its quality. I do not mean its linguistic quality, but the clarity of what it is setting out to achieve. The hon. and learned Member for Leith said that it was a mysterious passage and suggested that the Government were guilty of subterfuge. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said that it was explicit and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) began by saying, with his characteristic alliteration, that the provision did briefly, boldly and brazenly what it set out to do. He did not include the abjective "blatant," used by the Leader of the Opposition, but later—and this was an uncharacteristic inconsistency in what he was saying—he succumbed to the temptation of accepting the words put into his mouth and said that it was guarded, and even accepted the word "woolly".

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The dichotomy to which I was drawing attention was the one between the intent of the Clause, which I believe to be clear and brazen and all those other descriptive epithets which I applied to it, and its effect, which is highly doubtful, because it would appear that it may be a nullity. That proposition is endorsed by the authority of Professor Wade. There is no inconsistency except that inherent in the objects of the Clause.

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for the tribute paid by him to the linguistic clarity, even if he cannot recollect the epithets which he applied to it, of the Clause. I shall come back to deal with the effectiveness of it because that is a matter of real concern and obviously requires discussion.
To remain for the moment with the linguistic aspects of it, subsection (4) is not something which, as the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies) suggested, the draftsman has tried to slip in as an afterthought. The provisions of the central limb of subsection (4), linked with subsection (1) and Clause 3(1), are a consequence of membership. They follow from accession to the Treaty of Rome. They are designed to provide, so far as it can constitutionally be achieved, for Community law to prevail over conflicting provisions of future Acts of Parliament.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I meant that the middle words go further than merely referring to subsection (2). They are more relevant to subsection (1). The opening and closing words of the subsection refer mainly and perhaps solely to subsection (2), and to that extent something has been slipped into the subsection. It does not refer specifically to subsection (2). It goes wider than that.

The Solicitor-General: I take the point being made by the hon. Gentleman. It is a stylistic criticism. I thought he was suggesting that this had been slipped in as an afterthought. This is a central point, and the provisions of subsections (4) and (1) and Clause 3(1) stand together. It is this which has been regarded by consistent and stalwart opponents of entry into the Common Market, from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to my right hon. and learned Friend


the Member for Hertfordshire, East, as one of the unattractive aspects, but this is a well recognised principle, starting with the Van Gend en Loos case in 1963 and ending with the Signora Leonisio case in this year of grace.
Provision for the supremacy of Community law has always been there, and subsection (4) does no more than implement the opening words of paragraph 23 of the 1967 White Paper. Community law, having direct internal effect is designed to take precedence over the domestic law of the member States. From that it follows that the legislation of the Parliament of the United Kingdom giving effect to the law would have to do it in such a way as to override existing national law so far as it was inconsistent with Community law.

Mr. Powell: Existing law?

The Solicitor-General: I shall come back to the other aspect because that is different.
This has always been part of the obligation of joining the Community. It would make a nonsense of the necessity for Community law to have the same effect in every member State if the United Kingdom, any more than any other member State, could choose by national law to override what it did not like. The principle of Community law having precedence throughout the Community is one that operates for the mutual benefit of all member States. It is a principle that has been attained in every member State where directly applicable Community instruments take effect directly in their own terms and without further enactment—I invite the Committee to consider, for example, the Leonisio case—and give rise to rights and obligations within member States. It is necessary—and this is recognised by the far-sighted, whether friends or critics—to achieve uniformity. This is one of the grounds of complaint by the critics, but it follows that we must have the provisions of subsections (1) and (4) and Clause 3(1).
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has returned to the point that he has made before, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that there was room for variation, that there was room for different ways of approaching the implementation

of the introduction into this country of the precedence of Community law, and he referred to the passage in my right hon. Friend's speech on Second Reading on 17th February.
To suggest, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has done on a number of occasions, that there are options about the necessity for providing for the supremacy of Community law and for Community law to apply directly in this country, and to go on to suggest that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that there are other ways of doing it, is to misunderstand the passage in my right hon. Friend's speech. When he was interrupted by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones), my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was dealing with four different packages, namely, the implementation of past as well as future Community law and the method of handling indirect as well as direct Community law.
The passage cannot be relied upon to lead to the conclusion that there is any option or room for variation of the method of giving effect to directly applicable Community law, past and future, within this country. In the passage to which I have been referring my right hon. Friend said that
the enactment also has to take care of the future."—[Official Report, 17th February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 748.]
That was in relation to that part of Community law which would automatically become applicable, and that is what the Bill has done.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East said during the same debate, when he again used a series of terse epithets to pay tribute to the clairty of the Bill,
We cannot logically accept entry and reject its requirement."—[Official Report, 17th February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 314.]
That is the point, and that has been understood by those who have criticised our joining as well as those who have accepted it. It is upon that basis that I propose to take a few minutes more to explain the way in which I suggest that part two of the subsection is intended to work.
The subsection clearly provides that Statutes existing at the time when the Bill reaches the Statute Book should be


construed subject to Community law. The Bill has endeavoured to make all the necessary consequential changes in Part II and the Schedules. But apart from that it provides that any existing Statutes
shall be construed and have effect subject to the foregoing provisions",
that is to say, the rights, and so on, arising out of subsection (1) which flow from Community law.
On the question of future Statutes, the hon. and learned Member for Leith asked what was the meaning of the words "any enactment" and he postulated three alternatives. "Any enactment" means the second of the three which he suggested, namely, a Statute or secondary legislation of this country. It does not mean and, with respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not see how it can mean regulations or legislation of the Community.
Equally, I do not see how it would have any significance if it meant that. It would introduce into the Clause an element of circularity which I find difficult to follow. What is happening is that subsection (1) is providing for the effectiveness of Community law in accordance with the treaty, and the second part of subsection (4) is saying that, in future, enactments shall be read subject to that interpretation provision. I do not see how it can have the third meaning that the hon. and learned Member puts on it.
6.30 p.m.
So far as future Statutes are concerned, the question has been put by some hon. Members in its most marked form: could Parliament in the future repeal this Bill? The answer is that if it came to that—nobody contemplates that it should—it could do so. It is wrong in that context and sense to argue that we are here building an ineradicable weakness without precedent and that it is insurmountable. We are giving effect to our treaty provisions. But at the end of the day if repeal, lock, stock and barrel, was proposed, the ultimate sovereignty of Parliament must remain intact.

Mr. John: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for dealing with an argument which nobody has put up. What was sought to be argued on this point was that within the so-called ultimate sovereignty safeguard Parliament

would practically strip itself of a great deal of its sovereignty because arguments by hon. Mmebers would be to the effect that one could not do this and that we should think of the advantages we would be passing up in the rest of the Common Market provisions. Effectively we would be parting with sovereignty whilst retaining our right to break up the Common Market in the last resort.

The Solicitor-General: I shall deal with the middle ground arguments if the hon. Member will allow me to do so.
The answer to his point is that nobody who has considered this subject over the years is under any illusions that joining the European Communities is a change of fundamental and far-reaching importance. It was so described in glowing terms by the Leader of the Opposition when he made the application in May, 1967.
When we do that we are expressing a will and are joining the Treaty with those intentions in mind. That is a realistic new factor upon the way in which Parliaments work and Governments would accept it. I am dealing with the ultimate sovereignty. That remains intact.
Is there any room for future legislation of this Parliament expressly to exclude or override Community obligations? Several hon. Members have touched upon that. Most people have agreed that a subsequent United Kingdom Statute—even if not designed to pull us out of the Communities—which began with the phrase "notwithstanding the provisions of Clause 2 and Clause X of the European Communities Bill, black shall be white", would mean that the courts of this country would give effect to that limited proposition, certainly as the matter now stands.
It does not follow that it would be right to accept the argument of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead to insert the words "unless the contrary appears" or the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen that one should provide in the Bill a means whereby Parliament could say "notwithstanding our obligations the following shall take effect."
One cannot provide in advance for the prospective breach of treaty obligations. If it be diplomatic to assert that proposition, my hon. and learned Friend the


Member for Darwen has foreshadowed the argument. It is probably unrealistic, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) put it, to include such a provision in legislation designed to give effect to a treaty. In that respect Amendment No. 183 is unacceptable.
The final situation is what will happen if there is a future Act of Parliament which inadvertently, to a greater or lesser extent, may be in conflict with Community law. The courts would—as my hon. and learned Friends the Members for Northwich and Darwen pointed out—try in accordance with the traditional approach to interpret that Statute in accordance with our international obligations. That is as clear a convention of our constitution, as emphasised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich, as anything else.
Its effect would be to give the courts so far as possible explicit guidance in the same direction, in the direction of giving precedence to Community law. That is the intention of the new subsection (5) moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen. It does not advance the courts any further towards reaching that result than the provisions of the Clause as it now stands. That is the essential object of this limb of subsection (4). A number of questions can arise thereafter. I prefer not to take time dealing with the questions on execution because they can be dealt with on Clause 3.
Beyond what we do here it is not possible to judge, in resolving the possible conflicts and difficulties, in advance. It is not possible to do it however much one would try to do so by giving the United Kingdom courts, as Amendment No. 183 would, power to determine the United Kingdom enactment to be contrary to the treaties or regulations or to the decisions it may affect. That might not be the right solution in a given case. One cannot do more than that to reconcile the inescapable and enduring sovereignty of Parliament at the end of the road with the proposition that we should give effect to our treaty obligations to provide for the precedence of Community law. This directs the judges and courts, so far as one can in legislation of this kind, in that direction.
It is for those reasons that I invite the Committee to reject the Amendments now before the Committee.
The subsection does not, because it could not, resolve every problem or every possible conflict that could arise in the future. If through inadvertence any such conflict arose, that would be a matter for consideration by the Government and Parliament of the day.
At the present time the subsection does all that we can—as we have to do—to secure that directly applicable Community law will have full effect in the United Kingdom. That is the basis of our policy. It is the basis of accession to the Communities on any terms and at any time. It is on that basis that I commend the subsection to the Committee.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: The Committee is grateful to the Solicitor-General for replying shortly to the debate. I hope to follow his lead.
So far as Divisions are concerned, perhaps it would be of assistance to the Committee if I indicated that the Opposition would wish to vote on Amendment No. 420 together with Amendment No. 313. Amendment No. 313 is just as much an Opposition Amendment, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) will allow me, as is his Amendment. We reached the conclusion that this should be done. The right hon. and learned Gentleman happened to get to the Table Office before we were able to do so.
I would commend both these Amendments to the Committee. If it came to a legal match, perhaps Amendment No. 313 would get greater support in view of the fact that it is supported by all sides of the Committee.
I cannot reply in detail to what the Solicitor-General has said. It seems to me he has virtually conceded the debate against him. What was said from both sides of the Committee was to the effect that this subsection was not explicit and not clear. By developing the principle behind the subsection, rather than its wording, he has virtually conceded the justice of the criticisms we brought to bear. One is left asking why the meaty filling of this sandwich, which refers to subsection (1) as he admits, is concealed


by the bread of subsection (2), the only subsection to which reference is made in subsection (4).

The Solicitor-General: I did not wish to give the impression—although I may have done so in the face of interruptions—that the middle part only referred to subsection (1). The alternative suggested by one of my hon. Friends would have done so. This refers to the full provisions of this subsection.

Mr. Murray: I was not in doubt about that. That is why I concentrated on the meaty filling. There is plenty of other filling. I was not bothered about the butter. I was after the other filling.
My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies) spelt out with vigour and clarity the impact of the supremacy of European jurisprudence which necessarily follows from the provisions of subsection (4) of Clause 2 together with the provisions of subsection (1) of Clause 3. The Committee is indebted to him for that. In doing so he answered the defence of subsection (4) which has not been advanced from the Government side of the Committee but which was foreshadowed by the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival). We have not, unfortunately, heard him on that, but the defence was unnecessary because a greater concession was made by the Solicitor-General.
My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly referred to the authority on the meaning of "enactment". I think perhaps he had in mind the case of Rathbone v. Bundock, reported in [1962] 2 Queen's Bench Division. If he looks at that he will find that the meaning is a little different from what he said. What the court was deciding was that the meaning depended on the context that it could include a regulation, and we have heard from the Solicitor-General that it is intended to do that in this context.
The Solicitor-General has fulfilled the worst fears of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in dealing with the third limb of subsection (4). It now becomes clear that the argument goes far beyond what the right hon. Gentleman put forward to the Committee. It now appears that the words to which he attached importance,

except as may be provided by any Act passed after this Act",
are the sole reservation of parliamentary sovereignty, subject only to the general proposition which the Government have again put forward, that the Bill could be repealed but that repeal would be in the face of commitments to join the Community and would be an act of revolution in terms of international law.
It is on that point I wish to dwell. The question posed by the Solicitor-General was: Could Parliament repeal the Bill? He said that it could. That is the point of form. We want the point of substance which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly. If the majesty of European jurisprudence is brought to bear on the courts of this country, how can we be certain that if a Bill to repeal the present Bill did pass through the House of Commons the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg would regard that as a legal act of this Parliament? That court will be the ultimate arbiter. The question that should be posed is not: could this Parliament after the Bill is enacted repeal it? It should be: could this Parliament effectually and legally repeal it? That is the question which must be posed to the Committee.
It may well be that joining the Community imposes an obligation to commit suicide, but surely it does not impose an obligation to do so clumsily. The Government are seeking in this obscure provision of this obscure Bill to commit suicide, but they have made a botched job of it. They have tried to cut their throats and failed.

Mr. Percival: I rise only because the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) tempted me into doing so by referring to what I said. I adhere word for word to what I said. As the arguments have developed no one has seriously said that the subsection imposes any fetter on Parliament. There may be a diplomatic fetter. There may be good diplomatic and practical reasons for Parliament not to amend these provisions, but, as a matter of law, I adhere to the opinion I expressed, that there is nothing to prevent any subsequent Parliament from changing the provisions in any way it chooses expressly and specifically.
6.45 p.m.
That does not apply only to the ultimate safeguard of repealing the whole Act. That is one of the extravagant ideas that have been put forward today. What we are dealing with in this part of the Bill—I can hardly bring myself to use the word, but it seems to be the mode, as my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General used it—is the modality. I prefer "mechanics". We all know that, upon whatever terms we enter the Common Market, it will be necessary for the Government to implement thereafter a good deal of Community law, and that that can be done either by Act of Parliament, which will be subject to the scrutinies of Second Reading, Committee and Third Reading, or by subordinate legislation. No one has ever suggested that it can all be done by Act of Parlia-

ment, which would overload the business of the House and in any case be unnecessary.

What remains entirely unfettered is the power of Parliament to alter the balance between those laws which have to be implemented by Act of Parliament and those which can be implemented by subordinate legislation. There is nothing whatever in these provisions which fetters in the slightest the freedom of Parliament to decide those important matters for itself. As I said before, there is nothing here, because there cannot be anything, which imposes a fetter in law upon the action of any future House of Commons or Parliament.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided:  Ayes 268, Noes 283.

Division No. 214.]
AYES
[6.45 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Deakins, Eric
Hattersley, Roy


Allen, Scholefield
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hilton, W. S.


Armstrong, Ernest
Dempsey, James
Hooson, Emlyn


Ashley, Jack
Doig, Peter
Horam, John


Ashton, Joe
Dormand, J. D.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Atkinson, Norman
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Huckfield, Leslie


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Driberg, Tom
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Baxter, William
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dunnett, Jack
Hunter, Adam


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bidwell, Sydney
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Biffen, John
Ellis, Tom
Janner, Greville


Bishop, E. S.
English, Michael
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Evans, Fred
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Ewing, Henry
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Body, Richard
Faulds, Andrew
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Booth, Albert
Fell, Anthony
John, Brynmor


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Bradley, Tom
Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham.Ladywood)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Buchan, Norman
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Foley, Maurice
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Foot, Michael
Judd, Frank


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Ford, Ben
Kaufman, Gerald


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Forrester, John
Kelley, Richard


Cant, R. B.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Kerr, Russell


Carmichael, Neil
Freeson, Reginald
Kinnock, Neil


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lambie, David


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Lamborn, Harry


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Golding, John
Lamond, James


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Latham, Arthur


Cohen, Stanley
Gourlay, Harry
Leadbitter, Ted


Concannon, J. D.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Leonard, Dick


Crawshaw, Richard
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Cronin, John
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Dalyell, Tam
Hamling, William
Lipton, Marcus


Davidson, Arthur
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Lomas, Kenneth


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hardy, Peter
Loughlin, Charles


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Harper, Joseph
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)




Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
O'Malley, Brian
Spearing, Nigel


McBride, Neil
Oram, Bert
Spriggs, Leslie


McCartney, Hugh
Orbach, Maurice
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


McElhone, Frank
Oswald, Thomas
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


McGuire, Michael
Padley, Walter
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Mackenzie, Gregor
Paget, R. T.
Strang, Gavin


Mackie, John
Palmer, Arthur
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Mackintosh, John P.
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Maclennan, Robert
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Swain, Thomas


McMaster, Stanley
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Taverne, Dick


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Pavitt, Laurie
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Maginnis, John E.
Pendry, Tom
Tinn, James


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Pentland, Norman
Tomney, Frank


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Torney, Tom


Marks, Kenneth
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Tuck, Raphael


Marquand, David
Prescott, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Marsden, F.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Varley, Eric G.


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Price, William (Rugby)
Wainwright, Edwin


Marten, Neil
Probert, Arthur
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rankin, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Meacher, Michael
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Richard, Ivor
Wallace, George


Mendelson, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Watkins, David


Mikardo, Ian
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Weitzman, David


Millan, Bruce
Roderick, CaerwynE.(Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)
Wellbeloved, James


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Milne, Edward
Roper, John
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Rose, Paul B.
Whitehead, Phillip


Moate, Roger
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Whitlock, William


Molloy, William
Rowlands, Ted
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Molyneaux, James
Sandelson, Neville
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Moyle, Roland
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Woof, Robert


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Sillars, James



Murray, Ronald King
Silverman, Julius
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Oakes, Gordon
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Ogden, Eric
Small, William
Mr. Donald Coleman.


O'Halloran, Michael
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)



NOES


Adley, Robert
Chapman, Sydney
Foster, Sir John


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fowler, Norman


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fox, Marcus


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Churchill, W. S.
Fry, Peter


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Astor, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gardner, Edward


Atkins, Humphrey
Clegg, Walter
Gibson-Watt, David


Awdry, Daniel
Cockeram, Eric
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Cooke, Robert
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Coombs, Derek
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Cordle, John
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Batsford, Brian
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Goodhart, Philip


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cormack, Patrick
Goodhew, Victor


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Costain, A. P.
Gorst, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Critchley, Julian
Gower, Raymond


Benyon, W.
Crouch, David
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Crowder, F. P.
Green, Alan


Biggs-Davison, John
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Grieve, Percy


Blaker, Peter
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Grylls, Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. James
Gummer, J. Selwyn


Boscawen, Robert
Dean, Paul
Gurden, Harold


Bossom, Sir Clive
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Bowden, Andrew
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dixon, Piers
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bray, Ronald
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Drayson, G. B.
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dykes, Hugh
Haselhurst, Alan


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Eden, Sir John
Hastings, Stephen


Bryan, Sir Paul
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Havers, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N &amp; M)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hawkins, Paul


Buck, Antony
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hayhoe, Barney


Burden, F. A.
Emery, Peter
Heseltine, Michael


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Eyre, Reginald
Hicks, Robert


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Higgins, Terence L.


Carlisle, Mark
Fidler, Michael
Hiley, Joseph


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Channon, Paul
Fookes, Miss Janet
Holland, Philip







Holt, Miss Mary
Miscampbell, Norman
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Hordern, Peter
Money, Ernle
Simeons, Charles


Hornby, Richard
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Sinclair, Sir George


Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Monro, Hector
Skeet, T. H. H.


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Montgomery, Fergus
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
More, Jasper
Soref, Harold


Hunt, John
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Speed, Keith


Iremonger, T. L.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Spence, John


James, David
Morrison, Charles
Sproat, Iain


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Mudd, David
Stainton, Keith


Jessel, Toby
Murton, Oscar
Stanbrook, Ivor


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Steel, David


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Neave, Airey
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Jopling, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Normanton, Tom
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Nott, John
stokes, John


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Onslow, Cranley
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Kershaw, Anthony
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Tapsell, Peter


Kimball, Marcus
Osborn, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Kinsey, J. R.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Temple, John M.


Kirk, Peter
Pardoe, John
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Kitson, Timothy
Parkinson, Cecil
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Peel, John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Knox, David
Percival, Ian
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Lambton, Lord
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Lamont, Norman
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Lane, David
Pink, R. Bonner
Trew, Peter


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Le Marchant, Spencer
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Vickers, Dame Joan


Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Waddington, David


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Raison, Timothy
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Loveridge, John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Walters, Dennis


Luce, R. N.
Redmond, Robert
Ward, Dame Irene


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Warren, Kenneth


MacArthur, Ian
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Weatherill, Bernard


McCrindle, R. A.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


McLaren, Martin
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wiggin, Jerry


Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian
Winterton, Nicholas


McNair-wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Maddan, Martin
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Madel, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Woodnutt, Mark


Mather, Carol
Rost, Peter
Worsley, Marcus


Maude, Angus
Royle, Anthony
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Younger, Hn. George


Mawby, Ray
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.



Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Scott, Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Sharples, Richard
Mr. Hamish Gray


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed:  No. 313, in page 3, line 40, leave out from 'Parliament' to 'but' in line 43.—[Sir D. Walker-Smith.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided:  Ayes 270. Noes 285.

Division No. 215.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bishop, E. S.
Carmichael, Neil


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)


Allen, Scholefield
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Body, Richard
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Armstrong, Ernest
Booth, Albert
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Ashley, Jack
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Cohen, Stanley


Ashton, Joe
Bradley, Tom
Concannon, J. D.


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Crawshaw, Richard


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Cronin, John


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Buchan, Norman
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Baxter, William
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dalyell, Tam


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Darling, Rt. Hn. George


Bidwell, Sydney
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Davidson, Arthur


Biffen, John
Cant, R. B.
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)




Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pavitt, Laurie


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Pendry, Tom


Deakins, Eric
Judd, Frank
Pentland, Norman


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kaufman, Gerald
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kelley, Richard
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Russell
Prescott, John


Doig, Peter
Kinnock, Neil
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dormand, J. D.
Lambie, David
Price, William (Rugby)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lamborn, Harry
Probert, Arthur


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lamond, James
Rankin, John


Driberg, Tom
Latham, Arthur
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Duffy, A. E. P.
Leadbitter, Ted
Richard, Ivor


Dunn, James A.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunnett, Jack
Leonard, Dick
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Ellis, Tom
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Roper, John


English, Michael
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rose, Paul B.


Evans, Fred
Lipton, Marcus
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Ewing, Harry
Lomas, Kenneth
Rowlands, Ted


Fair, John
Loughlin, Charles
Sandelson, Neville


Faulds, Andrew
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Fell, Anthony
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N 'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham.Ladywood)
McBride, Neil
Silkln, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
McElhone, Frank
Sillars, James


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McGuire, Michael
Silverman, Julius


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Skinner, Dennis


Foley, Maurice
Mackie, John
Small, William


Foot, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Ford, Ben
Maclennan, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Forrester, John
McMaster, Stanley
Spriggs, Leslie


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Freeson, Reginald
McNamara, J. Kevin
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Maginnis, John E.
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Strang, Gavin


Golding, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Marks, Kenneth
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Gourlay, Harry
Marquand, David
Swain, Thomas


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marsden, F.
Taverne, Dick


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marten, Neil
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Meacher, Michael
Tinn, James


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Tomney, Frank


Hamling, William
Mendelson, John
Torney, Tom


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mikardo, Ian
Tuck, Raphael


Hardy, Peter
Millan, Bruce
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Harper, Joseph
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Varley, Eric G.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Milne, Edward
Wainwright, Edwin


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Hattersley, Roy
Moate, Roger
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Molloy, William
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hilton, W. S.
Molyneaux, James
Wallace, George


Hooson, Emlyn
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Watkins, David


Horam, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Weitzman, David


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wellbeloved, James


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Huckfield, Leslie
Moyle, Roland
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Whitehead, Phillip


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Murray, Ronald King
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oakes, Gordon
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hunter, Adam
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
O'Malley, Brian
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Janner, Greville
Oram, Bert
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orbach, Maurice
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Oswald, Thomas
Woof, Robert


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Padley, Walter



Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Paget, R. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


John, Brynmor
Palmer, Arthur



Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.,
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)



NOES


Adley, Robert
Atkins, Humphrey
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Awdry, Daniel
Bennet, Sir Frederic (Torquay)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bennet, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Benyon, W.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Berry, Hn. Anthony


Astor, John
Batsford, Brain
Biggs-Davison, John







Blaker, Peter
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Normanton, Tom


Boscawen, Robert
Haselhurst, Alan
Nott, John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hastings, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley


Bowden, Andrew
Havers, Michael
Oppenheim. Mrs. Sally


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hawkins, Paul
Osborn, John


Bray, Ronald
Hayhoe, Barney
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Heseltine, Michael
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hicks, Robert
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Higgins, Terence L.
Pardoe, John


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hiley, Joseph
Parkinson, Cecil


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Peel, John


Buchanan-Smith,Alick (Angus,N &amp; M)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Percival, Ian


Buck, Antony
Holland, Philip
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Burden, F. A.
Holt, Miss Mary
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hordern, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hornby, Richard
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Carlisle, Mark
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Cary, Sir Robert
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Channon, Paul
Hunt, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Chapman, Sydney
Iremonger, T. L.
Raison, Timothy


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
James, David
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Churchill, W. S.
Jessel, Toby
Redmond, Robert


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Clegg, Walter
Jopling, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cockeram, Eric
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cooke, Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Coombs, Derek
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cordle, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Kimball, Marcus
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Cormack, Patrick
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Costain, A. P.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Critchley, Julian
Kinsey, J. R.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Crouch, David
Kirk, Peter
Rost, Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Kitson, Timothy
Royle, Anthony


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
St. John-Stevas, Norman


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Knox, David
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. James
Lambton, Lord
Scott, Nicholas


Dean, Paul
Lamont, Norman
Scott-Hopkins, James


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lane, David
Sharples, Richard


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dixon, Piers
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Le Marchant, Spencer
Simeons, Charles


Drayson, G. B.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sinclair, Sir George


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dykes, Hugh
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Eden, Sir John
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Soref, Harold


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Loveridge, John
Speed, Keith


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Luce, R. N.
Spence, John


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sproat, Iain


Emery, Peter
MacArthur, Ian
Stainton, Keith


Eyre, Reginald
McCrindle, R. A..
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McLaren, Martin
Steel, David


Fidler, Michael
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Macmillan.Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stokes, John


Foster, Sir John
Maddan, Martin
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Fowler, Norman
Madel, David
Tapsell, Peter


Fox, Marcus
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fry, Peter
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Gardner, Edward
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Tebbit, Norman


Gibson-Watt, David
Mawby, Ray
Temple, John M.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mayer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Goodhart, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Goodhew, Victor
Money, Ernle
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Gorst, John
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Trew, Peter


Gower, Raymond
Monro, Hector
Tugendhat, Christopher


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Montgomery, Fergus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Green, Alan
More, Jasper
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Grieve, Percy
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Grylls, Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Waddington, David


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Morrison, Charles
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Gurden, Harold
Mudd, David
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Murton, Oscar
Wall, Patrick


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Walters, Dennis


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Neave, Airey
Ward, Dame Irene


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)









Warren, Kenneth
Winterton, Nicholas
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R. 


Weatherill, Bernard
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Younger, Hn. George


Wells, John (Maidstone)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


White, Roger (Gravesend)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Wiggin, Jerry
Woodnutt, Mark
Mr. Hamish Gray.


Wilkinson, John
Worsley, Marcus

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to move Amendment No. 426, in page 3, line 46, at end insert:
(5) Where, in regard to any determination of any of the Communities or their institutions or organs giving rise to rights or obligations within the meaning of subsections (1), (2), or (3) of this section, or giving rise to enactment within the meaning of subsection (4) of this section, the consent of the United Kingdom is withheld on the ground that a vital national interest of the United Kingdom is involved, the said determination, if still proceeded with, shall not apply to or take effect in the United Kingdom.
We have rather less time to consider this Amendment than is normally available in an Adjournment debate on some relatively minor matter which we can raise with Ministers every day of the week. The matter I am putting forward is a major one and a test of the Government's intentions.
What we are seeking to introduce into the arrangements of the Bill is no more than the Government have claimed in every major debate on the Common Market—that we have the right of veto when, in our judgment, our vital national interest is involved or threatened by a Community decision. Clearly this is a matter of major importance.
We have been dealing in Clause 2 with the powers of the Community to make laws and impose taxes on the British people. That was the essence of Clause 2(1) and (3). We have also covered the Government's right to issue Orders in Council to give effect to Community directives and if necessary to change existing Statutes which stand in the way. That is what subsections (2) and (4) have been about.
I say this because it is right that, when the main powers of the Community have been established in earlier provisions, we should now interpose the one serious countervailing power which the Government claim we would possess—the right of veto where our major national interest is involved. That is what our Amendment sets out to do.
7.15 p.m.
I declare myself a sceptic about the existence of the right of veto, the area in which it could play a part if it existed and the potential benefit of the use of the so-called national veto. But no such scepticism is open to the Government. They have invested very heavily in this device. It of course played an essential part in their presentation of the terms of entry. We need not go into detail over that again, but on most of the issues where the House and the country have been most unhappy, the Government have sought to reassure their critics by claiming that all will be well because, at the end of the various transitional periods, when new arrangements have to be agreed, the Government will get good terms under the threat of using our national veto.
Second, the Government have invested heavily in the veto in order to make just a little less unacceptable the massive transfer of power from this House of Commons to the European institutions which is involved in the various parts of Clause 2. We have asserted, for instance, under subsection (1) that laws could be made without regard to the wishes of the House of Commons or the British people. The Government's reply has been roughly, "Yes, we admit the danger, but what we are looking for—this is why we put forward this rather belated proposal for an ad hoc committee—is a way of consulting Parliament at the draft stage of a Community law. If it became clear to us that Parliament was strongly opposed to a particular proposal, then inside the Council of Ministers we could exercise the right of veto".
So there can be no doubt just how important a place in the Government's thinking this vital national interest veto occupies. That being so, it is important that we should look with some care at this device and seek to ask and get answered certain questions about it. My first question is whether this device exists at all.
It does not exist in the Bill. That is the reason for our Amendment. But, more important, the alleged national veto does not exist in the Treaty of Accession either. It is not the case that that treaty has nothing to say about decision-making generally inside the enlarged Community. It has a great deal to say about the position of the new institutions or the changed institutions, about how many votes are needed in the Council of Ministers and on what occasions decisions should be taken either by a majority vote or by unanimous agreement.
In all this, the treaties of accession follow the provisions of the Treaty of Rome itself, which carefully lays down the propervoting formula to be used on the different matters that it covers. So does the right of veto exist? Clearly, not in the treaty documents. The only evidence that can be adduced of its existence is the famous dispute which arose between France and the other five in 1965.
That dispute was patched up in January, 1966, in Luxembourg, when the Council of Ministers, in the famous phrase, agreed to disagree. How they did this is of some importance to the Committee. The statement which appeared after that meeting said:
The French delegation considers that, where very important interests are at stake, the discussion must be continued until unanimous agreement is reached.
As for the other five, they simply recorded the fact that they noted
that there is a divergence of view on what should be done in the event of failure to reach complete agreement".
So, to the extent that France believes that the veto exists, it does exist. However, the other five clearly do not share this view.
But it is also clear that this doctrine, held as it is by one of the Six and expressed as it has been in a Council statement, has no other foundation, so far as I can judge, in the practice of the Community, and certainly not in the law. In other words, it has not become the subject of any amendment to the Treaty of Rome or to any other treaties. Nor has the claim to a national interest veto been allowed to interfere with any of the judicial processes of the Community, which have, of course, continued to be operated throughout the period since 1966.
I turn to a second and related question. What are the areas in which this very thin national veto can be deployed? If we were to believe the Government, it could be used to stop virtually anything of which they disapproved in the future. But that is not the reality of the situation. I can do no better than to urge those hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who have invested everything in the right of a national veto to look again very carefully at the text of the Luxembourg accord. It relates here the particularly circumstances in which France claimed national interest rights and the other five, as it were, agreed to disagree about them:
Where in the case of decisions which may be taken by majority vote on the proposal of the Commission, very important interests of one or more partners are at stake.
The importance of those words is that if they are properly examined it is seen straight away that they leave out two categories of decision which are not covered by the formula, "Where on the proposal of the Commission decisions are to be taken by majority vote". Those are two important categories. The first is where the decision is to be taken not by the Council of Ministers but by the Commission, about which I shall speak shortly. The second is that this form of words excludes all those matters which have already been agreed and are part of the policies of the Community. Clearly one cannot veto the continuation of laws and policies which can be changed only by either majority or unanimous voting.
With these considerations, I shall look very briefly at how far this rather precariously based alleged national veto power can help us in the future. It is not very comforting. In the negotiations we remember all the anxieties about New Zealand, Commonwealth sugar and the fisheries agreement. All the arrangements made were derogations from the existing Community law. When the derogations expire, as they will in 1974, 1977 and 1982, the derogations end but the Community law goes on. That is a fact. Those derogations could be renewed, in full or in part, only if there was a majority or a unanimous decision to that effect. That is the point. So there is no veto operating on our behalf. The veto operates on the side of the continuation of those underlying arrangements from


which we have sought and obtained temporary derogations.
One other matter of considerable importance, which has been raised previously, is regional policy under Articles 92 and 93. The claim that we shall be able to assert our will on regional policy matters is incorrect. It is incorrect because Article 92 of the treaty gives the Commission powers in relation to the operation of State aids for regional purposes, and if a State objects to the Commission's decision it can go, under Article 93, to the European Court of Justice—as some have gone—or alternatively it can seek a political remedy in the Council of Ministers which, if it agrees unanimously that the State should continue to operate its particular State aid against the judgment of the Commission, can then authorise that State to do so. But once again, the method by which this most important decision is to be taken does not allow for the operation of a national veto in the way that hon. Gentlemen on the Government side believe and their Front Bench leaders and Ministers have given the country and the House to understand.
I come to the last part of my submission on this matter, and perhaps the most important part of all. The point that seems to have eluded so many people about the alleged national veto is this. While the past cannot be changed, for obvious reasons, by a veto, but can be changed only by a unanimous agreement or, in certain cases, by majority vote, where the veto can operate is on new policies in the future. That is why, in other words, we cannot look optimistically for changes in the agricultural policy of the Six, because it is an existing and continuing policy which we have no right to veto. But there are matters on which the Community might develop new policies of benefit to us, such as common industrial policies or, in certain circumstances, Community-financed regional policies. These can come about only if there is unanimity. In other words, the power of veto will lie in the hands of those who may not wish to see a tilt in the balance of advantage, which is at present so heavily against this country, through the introduction of new policies which would swing it back in our favour. Certainly this is a predicament we face.
When the Prime Minister returned flushed, as he thought, with success from his weekend in the Elysée over a year ago he announced that he found himself in total agreement with the thinking of the President of France about future decision-making in the Community. The Prime Minister was prepared to accept that nothing that had already been agreed should be changed and that therefore, on that, unanimity would be required, with great benefit to France. But as for the future he accepted the French President's view that the introduction of new policies which might conceivably be of benefit to us should be subject to a veto, particularly a French veto. I found it difficult to understand why the right hon. Gentleman had so much self-satisfaction in the report he gave to the House and to the country. It was certainly not justified.
Returning to the Amendment, I put my question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman straight away. The Government must resolve this matter. Will they accept the Amendment or will they themselves introduce an Amendment which is substantially similar? Time is short, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not need to speak. He can get away with it if he is prepared to nod. If he is prepared to nod that he will accept the introduction of the Amendment, we shall be very grateful to him.
Let me encourage the right hon. and learned Gentleman a little more. I have emphasised that the words used in our Amendment do nothing more than introduce the great claim that the Government have made at every stage of the negotiations. No more than that do we seek to do; to put into the Bill what the Government proclaimed to the whole country. That is what we ask of them. If they have any doubt, or if the right hon. and learned Gentleman has any doubt about his ability to do this, let me remind him of paragraph 29 of the July White Paper, which says:
On a question where a Government considers that vital national interests are involved, it is established that the decision should be unanimous.
So there is no barrier here to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assent. To encourage him even more, the White Paper continues:
All the countries concerned recognise that an attempt to impose a majority view in a


case where one or more members consider their vital interests to be at stake would imperil the very fabric of the Community.
Clearly the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not even offend the partners of this country or our would-be partners in the Community if he were willing to accept the Amendment, as I hope he will.
I realise that I am leaving the right hon. and learned Gentleman only two minutes in which to indicate the quality of his assent to the Amendment, which I am glad to recommend.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): As the then Prime Minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, said on 17th November, 1966:
The Luxembourg compromise is not part of the treaty, but it is of the greatest importance to anyone who seeks to examine the way in which the Community, with or without Britain, is likely to operate in future."—[Official Report, 17th November, 1966; Vol. 736, c. 762.]
This is the legal position. The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the changes in our domestic law which are required to give effect to our legal obligations under the treaty.
We had a very full debate on this matter on 16th December last year, and we have gone into all these matters over and over again. For the very brief reason I have given, it is clearly inappro-

priate that the Amendment should be accepted.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down will he say whether he is aware that we are altering the laws of England? Whether or not the undertaking is performed, if such a resolution is passed at Brussels it becomes part of the law of England. It is not the intention that it should be. Why cannot we have in the Bill something that will provide that the law of England shall be as he promised and as he put in his White Paper? That is all that is being asked.

Mr. Shore: It is clear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman finds no real difficulty with the substance of the Amendment, but he thinks that it is not actually necessary. Surely this is a good reason for him to accept it.

Mr. Rippon: It would be wrong to give legal effectto something which is not part of the treaty. We cannot give internal legal effect to a state of affairs which has not been defined in the treaty. The Leader of the Opposition has explained all this perfectly.

It being half-past Seven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Order [2nd May], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided:  Ayes 273, Noes 288.

Division No. 216.]
AYES
[7.30 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow,Sp'burn)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dempsey, James


Allen, Scholefield
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Doig, Peter


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dormand, J. D.


Armstrong, Ernest
Cant, R. B.
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)


Ashley, Jack
Carmichael, Neil
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Ashton, Joe
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Driberg, Tom


Atkinson, Norman
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Dunn, James A. 


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Dunnett, Jack


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Cohen, Stanley
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Baxter, William
Concannon, J. D.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Ellis, Tom


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Crawshaw, Richard
English, Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Cronin, John
Evans, Fred


Biffen, John
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Ewing, Henry


Bishop, E. S.
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Faulds, Andrew


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dalyell, Tam
Fell, Anthony


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.


Body, Richard
Davidson, Arthur
Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bradley, Tom
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Deakins, Eric
Foley, Maurice


Buchan, Norman
de Freites, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Foot, Michael




Ford, Ben
Loughlin, Charles
Rankin, John


Forrester, John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Freeson, Reginald
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Richard, Ivor


Gilbert, Dr. John
McBride, Neil
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Ginsburgh, David (Dewsbury)
McCartney, Hugh
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Golding, John
McElhone, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McGuire, Michael
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Gourlay, Harry
Mackenzie, Gregor
Roper, John


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mackie, John
Rose, Paul B.


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mackintosh, John P.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Maclennan, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McMaster, Stanley
Sandelson, Neville


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Hamling, William
Maginnis, John E.
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hardy, Peter
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marks, Kenneth
Sillars, James


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Marquand, David
Silverman, Julius


Hattersley, Roy
Marsden, F.
Skinner, Dennis


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Small, William


Heffer, Eric S.
Marten, Neil
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Hilton, W. S.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Spearing, Nigel


Hooson, Emlyn
Meacher, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie


Horam, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mendelson, John
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mikardo, Ian
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Huckfield, Leslie
Millan, Bruce
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Milne, Edward
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hunter, Adam
Moate, Roger
Swain, Thomas


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Molloy, William
Taverne, Dick


Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Molyneaux, James
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff,W.)


Janner, Greville
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Tinn, James


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Tomney, Frank


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Moyle, Roland
Torney, Tom


John, Brynmor
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Tuck, Raphael


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Murray, Ronald King
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Oakes, Gordon
Varley, Eric G.


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Ogden, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
O'Malley, Brian
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Oram, Bert
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Orbach, Maurice
Wallace, George


Judd, Frank
Orme, Stanley
Watkins, David


Kaufman, Gerald
Oswald, Thomas
Weitzman, David


Kelley, Richard
Padley, Walter
Wellbeloved, James


Kerr, Russell
Paget, R. T.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Kinnock, Neil
Palmer, Arthur
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Lambie, David
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles
Whitehead, Phillip


Lamborn, Harry
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Whitlock, William


Lamond, James
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Wiley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Latham, Arthur
Pavitt, Laurie
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Leadbitter, Ted
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Pendry, Tom
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Leonard, Dick
Pentland, Norman
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Perry, Ernest G.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Woof, Robert


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.



Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Prescott, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Lipton, Marcus
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)



Lomas, Kenneth
Price, William (Rugby)
Mr. Joseph Harper and



Probert, Arthur
Mr. Donald Coleman.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Benyon, W.
Bryan, Sir Paul


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N &amp; M)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Biggs-Davison, John
Buck, Antony


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Blaker, Peter
Burden, F. A.


Astor, John
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Atkins, Humphrey
Boscawen, Robert
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)


Awdry, Daniel
Bossom, Sir Clive
Carlisle, Mark


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bowden, Andrew
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Braine, Sir Bernard
Cary, Sir Robert


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bray, Ronald
Channon, Paul


Batsford, Brian
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Chapman, Sydney


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Chichester-Clark, R.







Churchill, W. S.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
James, David
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Clegg, Walter
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Raison, Timothy


Cockeram, Eric
Jessel, Toby
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Cooke, Robert
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Coombs, Derek
Jones, Arthur (Northerns, S.)
Redmond, Robert


Cooper, A. E.
Jopling, Michael
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Cordle, John
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cormack, Patrick
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Costain, A. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Critchley, Julian
Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Crouch, David
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ridsdale, Julian


Crowder, F. P.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Kinsey, J. R.
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


d'Avigdor-Goldtmid, Sir Henry
Kirk, Peter
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Kitson, Timothy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dean, Paul
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rost, Peter


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Knox, David
Royle, Anthony


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lambton, Lord
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Dixon, Piers
Lamont, Norman
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lane, David
Scott, Nicholas


Drayson, G. B.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott-Hopkins, James


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharples, Richard


Dykes, Hugh
Le Merchant, Spencer
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Eden, Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Simeons, Charles


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Sinclair, sir George


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Emery, Peter
Loveridge, John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington.)


Eyre, Reginald
Luce, R. N.
Soref, Harold


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Speed, Keith


Fidler, Michael
MacArthur, Ian
Spence, John


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McCrindle, R. A.
Sproat, Iain


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McLaren, Martin
Stainton, Keith


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fortescue, Tim
Macmillan.Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Steel, David


Foster, Sir John
McNair-wilson, Michael
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Fowler, Norman
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Fry, Peter
Maddan, Martin
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Madel, David
Stokes, John


Gardner, Edward
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gibson-Watt, David
Mather, Carol
Tapsell, peter


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tebbit, Norman


Goodhart, Philip
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Temple, John M.


Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Gorst, John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Gower, Raymond
Miscampbell, Norman
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon. S.)


Gray, Hamish
Money, Ernle
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Green, Alan
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Grieve, Percy
Monro, Hector
Trew, Peter


Grylls, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gummer, J. Selwyn
More, Jasper
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gurden, Harold
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Waddington, David


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mudd, David
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Murton, Oscar
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wall, Patrick


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Neave, Alrey
Walters, Dennis


Haselhurst, Alan
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Ward, Dame Irene


Hastings, Stephen
Normanton, Tom
Warren, Kenneth


Havers, Michael
Nott, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Hawkins, Paul
Onslow, Cranley
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hayhoe, Barney
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Heseltine, Michael
Osborn, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Hicks, Robert
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Wilkinson, John


Higgins, Terence L.
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Winterton, Nicholas


Hiley, Joseph
Page, John (Harrow. W.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Pardoe, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Parkinson, Cecil
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Holland, Philip
Peel, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Holt, Miss Mary
Percival, Ian
Worsley, Marcus


Hordern, Peter
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Hornby, Richard
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Younger, Hn. George


Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Pink, R. Bonner



Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pounder, Rafton
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)



Hunt, John
Prior, Rt. Hon. J. M. L.
Mr. Marcus Fox and Mr. Kenneth Clarke.



Proudfoot, Wilfred

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: I beg to move Amendment No. 253, in page 4, line 1, leave out subsection (5).

The Temporary Chairman: With this Amendment we are to discuss Amendment No. 349, in line 9, after 'include', insert:
'the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or'.

Mr. Jennings: This is an exploratory Amendment, a probing and proving Amendment. The word "proving" is a new one on me. But it has been used upstairs in the Committee considering the Finance Bill quite a lot in the past 2½ weeks.
The purpose of the Amendment is to find out the Government's intentions with regard to subsectiton (5). Necessarily, this will be a short speech because the details of the subsectiton will no doubt be debated when we come to Schedule 2. But it is necessary to try to explain in simple lay language what the subsection says and does, as far as I understand its expert wording.
The main point is that there is now no Government of Northern Ireland. They are suspended. The subsection deals with the powers and duties of the Northern Ireland Government or Parliament if and when—I say "if" advisedly—we join the Community on 1st January.
It is necessary to look a little more closely at the subsection to see what I am aiming to delete from the Bill. We must look at the wording of the subsection, which falls into roughly four parts, to see whether it can have any validity in the entirely new situation. The first sentence says:
The limitations on the legislative power of the Parliament of Northern Ireland…shall not be construed to prevent that Parliament"—
there is no
that Parliament
at present, and, therefore, that part of the subsection is no longer valid and should not be in the Bill—
from enacting provisions for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (2)(a) and (b) above".
In other words, under the subsection the Northern Ireland Parliament, if it were

in existence, would have under the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, certain powers to act within the Community according to the directives and other legislation from Brussels. But there is now no Northern Ireland Parliament, and, therefore, it cannot enact provisions under that Act.
7.45 p.m.
The subsection continues
and the references in that subsection to a Minister of the Crown or government department.
There is no Minister of the Crown, in the sense that we understand the term, in the Northern Ireland Parliament. My right hon. Friend the former Lord President of the Council is acting on behalf of this Parliament, and there is, in effect, direct rule. Stormont has been suspended for a year, and, therefore, has no powers under the subsection to do anything. The subsection has no validity, and should not be in the Bill. The subject of the subsection is in suspension for a year, and we do not know how long that suspension will eventually last.
If I am told that the Amendment would denude Stormont of all its powers, my reply is that Stormont has already been denuded of all its powers and, therefore, can have no power to bring into effect any of the directives, regulations or legislation of the Community constitutional organisations.
The subsection states:
…a statutory power or duty shall include a Minister or department of the Government of Northern Ireland…".
But the Government of Northern Ireland no longer exists, and, therefore, again this subsection has no validity. I cannot get away from the simple lay fact that the subsection no longer applies and should not be in the Bill in view of the constitutional position which has been created since the Bill was drafted and printed. All I am asking is for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Northern Ireland to tell us the Government's intention with regard to the subsection and the powers it gives to the Parliament of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has it crossed the hon. Gentleman's mind that there may be further complications? What


sort of powers will subsection (5) have over those areas of Northern Ireland over which even the Secretary of State has no control at present?

Mr. Jennings: That, to meat the moment, is beside the point, but it is valid and something which will have to be considered by the Committee and the House itself when considering the general terms of the Northern Ireland situation.
I come to the last lines of subsection (5)—
…a statutory power or duty…".
One cannot have a statutory power unless one has a statutory authority, and the statutory authority in Northern Ireland has been suspended and no longer exists. I keep coming back to this matter. It is the fundamental cause of my desire to delete subsection (5).

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: Is my hon. Friend not ignoring a fairly fundamental distinction between suspension and abolition? The very fact that something is suspended must mean that it is in existence. One cannot suspend something which has gone out of existence. If my hon. Friend will accept this argument, I think that his difficulties are solved. It is really—to use scholastic definitions—a difference between existence in potentia and existence in actu.

Mr. Jennings: I talk in plain English. We have to get down to the practical fundamentals of the situation. Does my hon. Friend envisage that by 1st January, when—or if—we are destined to go into the EEC, Stormont will have been brought back with its full powers? Not on your life! Not even the most optimistic person believes that. If subsection (5) is not deleted, we shall be entering the EEC with a provision relating to powers and duties of an authority which no longer exists because it is in suspension, and there may be grave doubts whether it will ever come back in the form it possessed before.
I shall not go into the prognostications of what may happen in Northern Ireland. I am dealing with the situation as it is now and as I think it will be on 1st January. The straight answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) is that I am trying to anticipate the Minister's answer, because I think I shall be told that I am

stripping Stormont of all its powers. I am saying, however, that Stormont has already been stripped of all its powers and that it is likely to have lost them for an inconceivable time in the future. Therefore, again coming back to the last few lines of subsection (5) I say, politely—

Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Gentleman is arguing his case so persuasively that I am attracted by what he is saying. But would he be satisfied merely to receive a kind of bureaucratic answer from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the matter? Would it not be better, this constitutional question having been raised, to have either the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General, or some of those clever lawyers who have drafted this infernal legislation, here to answer the debate? We should not just have a layman's answer. Indeed, I shall appeal to the Chair on a point of order. Mr. Brewis, a constitutional issue has been raised, and, in my opinion, we should have the presence of Law Officers to answer.

The Temporary Chairman: That is a point of comment and not a point of order.

Mr. Jennings: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) is an old Mend of mine and I know how sincerely he feels about constitutional matters, as I do. He is right in saying that this is a great constitutional issue. I should be flattered if Law Officers of the Crown came in to answer this substantial and valid constitutional point. But the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do, because we have both had years of experience of the House of Commons, that I cannot demand that certain Ministers should come in to answer a debate. I shall be happy with an answer from either of the two Ministers now on the Front Bench if it is favourable. But what the answer will be I do not know.
Perhaps I may now get back to the last few lines of subsection (5) again. It refers to
…a power or duty arising under…an Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland: 
It is not "a" Parliament, but "the" Parliament of Northern Ireland, which no longer exists. I repeat what I have said at least half a dozen times in the last 10 minutes—that since Stormont no longer


exists this subsection is no longer valid and should not be in the Bill. I am interested to know what the intentions of the Government are towards the subsection.

Mr. J. T. Price: Dishonourable.

Mr. Michael Foot: Strictly dishonourable.

Mr. Jennings: I do not agree. I am a good Tory. I have always said that I am the best Tory in the House of Commons. I do not agree with the strictures of hon. Members opposite. I am sure I shall get an honourable answer, and I hope that it will be a sensible one acknowledging the realities and practicalities of the situation. I hope I shall be told that the Government are to withdraw subsection (5)and perhaps on Report bring in a new provision which will deal with this fantastic situation, which is an entirely new one.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: The Committee is grateful to the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) for the very moderate and cogent way in which he presented the arguments for Amendment No. 253. I think that his arguments would commend themselves to the Opposition and I would be inclined to follow entirely along the road he set out. I am bound, however, to admit that I cannot help agreeing with the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) in his intervention. The way I understand it, the result of the enactments which we have made in this Parliament with regard to Northern Ireland is not that Stormont does not exist but that it is, as it were, in cold storage. I do not think it is material, but I think we can agree on the essentials. Perhaps that small element of disagreement can be set aside.
Amendment No. 349, which we are considering with Amendment No. 253, is a very narrow one. It is also a drafting and technical one. I think it is slightly more substantial than that, however, and that it raises a genuine difficulty which the Government have to face and to resolve if they can. The resolution of the difficulty may not be quite so easy as the posing of it. The difficulty arises from the last three lines of subsection (5), and I think the hon. Member for Burton

touched on this difficulty amongst the others which he adumbrated.
8.0 p.m.
The problem arises in this regard. The subsection clearly deals with
the purposes mentioned in subsection (2)(a) and (b) above.
It then goes on and refers to
a Minister of the Crown or government department and to a statutory power or duty shall include".
Up to that point it is clear that we are dealing with the
Minister of the Crown or government department
in Clause 2(2). There is no ambiguity there.
Then we come to the words which pose the difficulty. The subsection goes on to say:
the references in that subsection…shall include a Minister or department of the Government of Northern Ireland and a power or duty arising under or by virtue of an Act of Parliament of Northern Ireland.
The problem, if I may anticipate it and put it in a nutshell at the outset to make it clear, is that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wears two hats. He is a United Kingdom Minister. That was the point of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1972. The idea was direct rule which meant that a United Kingdom Minister would hold the responsibility for that troubled Province. If he is a United Kingdom Minister the question arises: does he have another hat as a Minister of the Government of Northern Ireland in some sense?
If we want to discover the answer to that, we have to look in detail at the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act. This says in Section 1(1):
So long as this section has effect".
Then follow the words which the hon. Member for Chelmsford would wish to dwell upon, as I would:
the Secretary of State shall act as chief executive officer as respects Irish services instead of the Governor of Northern Ireland".
The functions with regard to that aspect of his work are set out in paragraph (a). Clearly that is not a ministerial function. It is rather a type of legal function.
We come to paragraph (b) which reads:
all functions which belong to a department of the Government of Northern Ireland may be discharged by the Secretary of State".


We have clearly got a hat which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wears in Northern Ireland, that is the hat of being able to discharge all functions which belong to a Department of the Government of Northern Ireland.
If I may now take the Committee back, because it will be clearer if I do so, to the wording on page 4 of the Bill, and the last three lines of subsection (5) we find that there is the reference to
include a Minister or department of the Government of Northern Ireland".
Obviously there can be no such Minister, because we have said in the Temporary Provisions Act that there may be no Minister. If we are to operate this subsection, and this was very much the content of what the hon. Member for Burton argued, the words "a Minister" do not apply because the 1972 Act has made sure that during this period, there will be no Minister of the Government of Northern Ireland.
That is the content. To discover how the content relates to the present status of the Government of this country in Northern Ireland we look against at Section 1(1)(b) of the 1972 Act, which says:
all functions which belong to a department of the Government of Northern Ireland"—
I stress the words "functions which belong to a department of the Government of Northern Ireland"—
may be discharged by the Secretary of State".
That is a Northern Ireland hat which the Secretary of State gets in Northern Ireland, and on the face of it he gets it on the basis of legislation in existence on 30th March, 1972, because the hypothesis upon which the Northern Ireland Act was passed was that the law of Northern Ireland as at that date would be constant, unless and until it was specifically altered by this Legislature. That was the point of direct rule.
We return to subsection (5) of the Bill and ask ourselves: is it clear that the words "department of the Government of Northern Ireland" and the following words are apt to convey to the Government of Northern Ireland—in the refrigerator or in cold storage at the moment—under the aegis of the Secretary of State the necessary powers of subsection (2)(a) and (b) of Clause 2. Does it make the

necessary connection? Is the link forged which enables these powers to be regarded as functions belonging to a department of the Government of Northern Ireland within the meaning of the Temporary Provisions Act?

Mr. Jennings: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is directly responsible to this Parliament, not fully, but he comes here and answers Questions and debates? I would like the hon. and learned Gentleman to make it clear that the Secretary of State is not responsible to any Parliament in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Murray: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. That exactly underlines the argument I am presenting and puts it cogently. This is the major hat which the Secretary of States wears. He wears the hat of the United Kingdom, responsible in Northern Ireland to this House for what happens there. I do not invite the Committee to take the view that this is a case in which it is obvious that the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act are not apt to carry what is said to be transferred by the terminal words of subsection (5). What I am saying is that there is a doubt, and I would have thought a serious doubt, which could be readily resolved by the Government accepting this Amendment.
It would be as plain as a pikestaff that the Secretary of State was being given responsibility in respect of both the hats he wears but he will be responsible to the House of Commons and will get powers directly from the House to exercise under subsection (5). Otherwise the situation is very unsatisfactory because it is necessary to say—and no doubt this is what the Government spokesman will say—that we go to these rather obscure words in Section 1(1)(b) to get the necessary deduction of title which enables this provision to operate for Northern Ireland as subsection (5) would wish it to operate.
I have one crucial observation. This is to avoid dubiety, to avoid doubt and obscurity. The Amendment does not affect the principle of Community entry, it does not bear upon anything except clarity and safeguards, ensuring responsibility of Ministers to the House in the difficult and dangerous situation existing


in Northern Ireland. It might not be tactful but it would certainly be apposite of me to remind the Government that they got themselves into difficulties in this area, which they had to resolve by the 1972 Act, because of doubts of this type about the legality of the operation of United Kingdom Forces in Northern Ireland. No one thought there were doubts until suddenly a court saw them, and then all the peace-keeping activities, or whatever they are called by the opponents of the Government, of Her Majesty's Government's Forces in Northern Ireland were placed at peril and at risk. Surely it would not be right to repeat doubt and dubiety of that kind?

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I apologise if the point I am about to make has already been made, as I believe it may have been. The point is that the Parliament of Northern Ireland still exists, it has not altogether disappeared and could well return in a matter of months or weeks.

Mr. Murray: I think that the hon. Gentleman might have a conversation with his hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, with whom I agree.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe (Heston and Isleworth): It seems that the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) wholly rested upon a proposition which he repeated, and said that he would continue to repeat many times, that the Northern Ireland Parliament no longer existed.
That proposition, as the last interchange showed, is, clearly, ill-judged because the Northern Ireland Parliament still exists. Whether it is operating or not is covered by the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act which was passed earlier this year.
The existence of the Northern Ireland Parliament is not in doubt. As a result, the whole of my hon. Friend's argument is in doubt. He rests his case upon a proposition which, clearly, has no standing in law or in fact. The Northern Ireland Parliament was not abolished by the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, although I readily accept that some hon. Members, particularly those sitting opposite, may well have liked that to have been the effect of

the legislation. That legislation merely put that Parliament into suspension. Therefore, the argument fails that my hon. Friend adduced in support of his Amendment.
My hon. Friend does a grave disservice in presenting his argument on the basis that the Northern Ireland Parliament has been abolished when it has not. There will be people in Northern Ireland who will listen to or read his words. They may be misled into believing that the effect of the Act, which this Parliament passed, was different from what was intended.

Mr. Jennings: My hon. Friend must not put words into my mouth which I never used. Not once in my short speech did I use the word "abolish". He is wrong to attribute that word to me. He must withdraw.
Secondly, he must not impute wrong motives to me. That is too easy a thing to do in this House. My motive is, and always has been, completely constitutional. My motive is as good as my hon. Friend's motive. He must not impute to me the motive of my wanting to cause mischief by asking for this subsection to be deleted.

Mr. Hayhoe: I impute no motive. If I put words into my hon. Friend's mouth which he did not use I withdraw them. The words I should have rested on, which he used many times, are that the Northern Ireland Parliament no longer exists.

Mr. Jennings: That is true.

Mr. Hayhoe: It was perhaps my desire not to be repetitive and slightly to vary the wording which led me to use the phrase to which my hon. Friend objects. In those circumstances I readily withdraw.
I am making no imputation of motive. I have the highest respect for my hon. Friend. I have been in this House only a short time and I would not dream of imputing motives to what he has done. However, surely it is right and reasonable for me to express a point of view, a judgment of my own, that the effect of what he has been saying, I am sure from the highest possible constitutional and moral principles, could, without his desire or knowledge, have an adverse result. That is what I am saying could happen as a result of using these words and resting his argument upon the words that


the Northern Ireland Parliament no longer exists.
If those words are taken by the people in Northern Ireland to reflect the reality, then, albeit without any desire to have done so, he will have created an unfavourable impression in the part of Northern Ireland that would be affected by those words. That could lead to the difficulty of people believing that hon. Members have done something which they did not do. The expression "no longer existing" is, clearly, not true. Therefore, my hon. Friend's argument fails.
8.15 p.m.
If I may take the rather narrower point of the Amendment moved from the Opposition Front Bench, Amendment No. 349, I take the legalistic point made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray). It seems so often that arguments of this sort are a joy for the lawyers. If the doubts which have been expressed from the Opposition Front Bench cannot be resolved by a clear statement from our Front Bench, I hope that that Amendment, if it is a belt and braces measure making quite certain that the legalities are observed because the situation has changed, will be accepted.
Although I respect the drafting abilities of some lawyers, probably the eventualities feared by the hon. and learned Member for Leith are covered by the words in subsection (5) and are totally adequate to the purposes of the Bill. If they are not totally adequate, I suspect that we are saying that there is a deficiency not in the wording of the Bill but in the wording of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act. If the words there used are not sufficient to cover and lay on top of the words used here, if there is that deficiency, it will apply to a whole row of other legislative provisions in which words about the Parliament, Ministers or departments of Northern Ireland appear. We shall be in grave difficulties not just on this issue but on an enormous wide range of issues.
It struck me that the point being made from the Opposition Front Bench was a criticism of the wording of the Bill which they wholeheartedly supported this year. Perhaps they were as inconsistent in

putting forward their Amendment as I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Burton was in putting forward his Amendment.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: On many occasions I have had the opportunity to vote with my right hon. and hon. Friends against the terms of entry into the EEC. This is the first occasion that I have had the opportunity to address the Committee.
The arguments which have been advanced by the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) can redound or rebound. I fully accept the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings). When this legislation was originally drafted there existed a Northern Ireland Parliament. That Parliament is now in cold storage, abolished, non-existent or whatever it may be. I do not believe that that Parliament will ever be reactivated.
Irrespective of my ambitions in that direction, let us talk about the pure academic aspect of the situation. Since the Stormont Parliament was abolished we have had the Secretary of State and his advisers and colleagues coming to the Dispatch Box and saying that any legislation which had been enacted in the Northern Ireland Parliament, even if it was halfway through, would be accepted by this Parliament.
I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Parliament. Technically I am a Member of a Parliament which is no longer in operation. I took part in a Common Market debate in Stormont. It was on a White Paper. No decision was taken, so we do not know what the wishes were of the Northern Ireland people. We do not know whether they want to become members of the Common Market.
If we are to follow the logical sequence of the argument adduced by the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth, who attempted to use it to the disadvantage of his hon. Friend the Member for Burton, that the Parliament of Northern Ireland has been abolished or suspended for a year—that is all the legislation says, so people can live in hope that it may be brought back into operation at the end of 12 months—what will happen if, at the end of the 12 months, by a clearly expressed vote, it decides that it does not


want anything to do with the EEC on the present terms?
This Parliament, having suspended the Northern Ireland Parliament, in which no vote has ever been taken, has no clear idea of the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, because they have never been voiced through their own Parliament. Therefore, in the 12 months during which the Northern Ireland Parliament has been put into temporary suspension, the Westminster Parliament will override the wishes of the Northern Ireland people, because they are being told: "We know better than the people of Northern Ireland what they want in relation to this commitment to the EEC."
This will be a dramatic departure from what we have seen so far. All the legislation enacted by the Northern Ireland Parliament, including the notorious Special Powers Act, has been accepted by the Westminster Parliament. The Government are saying "We will accept all the legislation which the Northern Ireland Parliament has passed", but if the Northern Ireland Parliament had expressed opposition to entry into the EEC on the present terms—I pose this question sincerely and honestly—would the Government have said "Irrespective of the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, you are now going into the EEC on our terms, whether you like it or not"? Although there is a water barrier between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, the same question should apply to everyone.
I know that many hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly Ulster Unionist Members, are opposed to entry into the Common Market for reasons which differ greatly from my own. I hope they will go into the Lobby tonight in support of the Amendment. I do not accept their reasons for going into the Lobby, but I understand they will be voting against the Government because they are not satisfied with the statement made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland yesterday. However, I can only restate my own position and pose this question.

Mr. James Molyneaux: rose—

Mr. Fitt: I understand there will be an opportunity for hon. Gentlemen repre-

senting Northern Ireland constituencies to put forward their views.
At present Northern Ireland is represented here by 12 Members. It is clear that the majority of those Members are opposed to entry into the EEC on the present terms. In what way do the Government intend to take into consideration the wishes of the Northern Ireland people? Many of us differ greatly in our political approach to the problems of Northern Ireland. Many hon. Gentlemen would be diametrically opposed to my political attitude, but I think they are legitimately and honestly expressing the wishes of their constituents when they stand up and oppose entry into the Common Market on the present terms.
In England, Scotland and Wales there may be considerable doubt about the attitudes of constituents in different constituencies, but in Northern Ireland the position is different. If the majority of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland do not agree with entry on the present terms, will the Committee completely disregard their wishes?

Mr. William Baxter: My hon. Friend need be in no dubiety about the attitude of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies towards the Common Market. The majority of them are opposed to entry, so what he says about Northern Ireland applies to Scotland.

Mr. Fitt: I accept what my hon. Friend has said. However, Northern Ireland is a case in point as it differs to a great extent from Britain. That is why many hon. Members who support the Government are not exactly clamouring for total integration at the moment.
It is clear that the majority of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies do not want entry into the Common Market on the present terms. However, the Government are now saying "We have abolished your Parliament; it no longer exists. Therefore, we will dictate that you agree with these terms whether you like them or not."
I have been consistent in my opposition to this legislation in its present form. Amendment No. 349 would perhaps tie up the technical and academic ends by inserting
the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or".


But what happens if we bring Stormont back into existence? Will it be too late for Stormont to express its opposition to entry into the Common Market? Has it been denied the opportunity of expressing its wishes?
It may be that not all my constituents support my opposition to entry. The Republic had a referendum. I supported those in the Republic, particularly the Irish Labour Party, who were opposed to the entry of the Republic of Ireland into the Common Market on the present terms. I concede that they lost out. It may be that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want to enter the Common Market on the terms negotiated by the Government. But who knows? All we know is that the majority of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies in this place are opposed to entry. I believe that the majority of Ulster Unionist or Nationalist Members, including the hon. Members for mid-Ulster (MissDevlin) and Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus), have a close involvement with the hopes, aspirations and needs of their constituents. If we stand up in the House of Commons and say that because of an intimate knowledge of the views of our constituents we believe that they do not want to enter the EEC on these terms, our political future may be at stake.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is going rather wide and making almost a Second Reading speech. We are operating under a guillotine. Will the hon. Member please come back to the Amendment.

Mr. Fitt: I do not want to take advantage of the first opportunity I have had to intervene in these debates. I have pointed out that the people in Northern Ireland, as represented by their Members in this House, are not in agreement with the terms of entry which have been negotiated by the Government. I therefore support the Amendment.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I should like to return to the two Amendments which the Committee is considering. I do not agree with much of what has been said by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), and I am sure that that will not surprise him.

Also, I am not as content as my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) is with the provisions of the Clause.
I feel that subsection (5) is a complete nonsense, and it is important that the Bill, which is presumably to become law and take effect from the beginning of next year, should make sense. The wording of subsection (5) is extremely permissive. It says:
The limitations on the legislative power of the Parliament of Northern Ireland which are imposed by section 4 (1) (4) (treaty matters) of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 shall not be construed to prevent that Parliament, on matters otherwise within their powers, from enacting provisions for any of the purposes mentioned",
and it goes onto refer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) said, to Ministers and Departments of the Government of Northern Ireland.
8.30 p.m.
As all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate have said, the Parliament at Stormont is in suspense, and, therefore, that subsection does not make sense. The Bill should, therefore, be amended by omitting the subsection, or in the way suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray), or in some other way so that it makes sense.
Nobody knows what will happen in Northern Ireland. It is most unlikely that at the end of the year provided by the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1972—that is, at the end of March, 1973, about three months after the Bill is designed to come into effect—the Parliament of Northern Ireland will be restored in its old form.
I believe and, indeed, hope that the Parliament of Northern Ireland will quickly be restored to power, but, knowing the situation as I do, it would be totally unrealistic to expect, and, indeed, be misleading to expect, that after a short interim period the Parliament and Government of Northern Ireland will come back in their old form. The matter should, therefore, be much more clearly and concisely dealt with.
One finds the same nonsense repeated in paragraph 3 of Schedule 2. There one finds not only a permissive provi-


sion but something which requires positive action. It says:
Nothing in paragraph 2 above shall apply to any Order in Council made by the Governor of Northern Ireland or to any regulations made by a Minister or department of the Government of Northern Ireland; but where a provision contained in any section of this Act confers power to make such an Order in Council or regulations, then any Order in Council or regulations made in the exercise of that power, if made without a draft having been approved by resolution of each House of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, shall be subject to negative resolution within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 as if the Order or regulations were a statutory instrument within the meaning of that Act.
In other words, that paragraph requires positive action by the Parliament of Northern Ireland, but as that Parliament has been suspended it is impossible for such positive action to be taken and, therefore, as drafted, both the subsection and the Schedule are nonsense. If the Bill is to come into effect on 1st January, 1973, these provisions must be amended.
I therefore welcome this opportunity to probe the Government's intention with respect to the situation in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Government will indicate an intention to introduce an Amendment on Report to cover these important points.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West made many provocative statements, although he did not allow any interruption. I want it to be clearly on the record that I do not agree with anything that he said. He implied that Ulster Unionist Members at Westminster resisted certain parts of the legislation—some of us resisted the entire Bill—out of pique or because we were annoyed at what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of my constituents and I firmly believe that all this legislation will operate to the detriment of the United Kingdom as a whole, and more particularly to the detriment of Northern Ireland. Important Measures such as the Safeguarding of Employment Act will be swept aside. The temporary or transitional provisions may or may not be renewed at the end of five years. This will presumably be subject to a veto by the Government of Eire, who have expressed an intention, confirmed by plebis-

cite, of joining the Common Market. It may not be in their interests to allow a renewal of the Safeguarding of Employment Act. There is also the question of the effect on the cost of food, which will be particularly heavy in Northern Ireland, partly because of the present disturbances and also because of the lower standard of living there.
These are matters which make Unionist Members very concerned about this legislation. Whether it will create further employment in Northern Ireland is greatly in doubt. We are remote from the Market. Even in the best of all worlds, assuming that the disturbances rapidly ceased, which is a very big assumption, it is most unlikely that many firms will wish to set up in Northern Ireland to take advantage of the United Kingdom's accession to the Treaty of Rome. There are many reasons why Unionist Members view this legislation critically.
These Amendments are important. I should like the Minister to deal with these points and indicate to the Committee how he intends to deal with the transitional period and what the Government's longer-term intentions are with respect to the whole position of Northern Ireland as covered by the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: When I first saw these two Amendments I was foolish enough to think that they were very simple Amendments which could be swiftly disposed of. I should have known that anything concerning Ireland immediately betrays ramifications which one had not suspected. Many fears have been expressed which I believe are totally illusory.
The basis of the argument must rest on whether Stormont is abolished or whether it has been suspended. If it has been abolished, the Clause is otiose and unnecessary. It is clear from the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1972, that Stormont is suspended only and is capable of coming into existence again as soon as that Act expires. It is called the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1972. If this House does nothing further—if that Act is not renewed—we shall return to the status quo. Stormont will be back in existence. I would have thought that was incontrovertible.
I made no impression on my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings). I was wrong perhaps to use the words "potentiality" and "actuality", which may have put him off. It is Aristotelian. It is Aristotle's philosophy. I would hope it would be commendable to my hon. Friend on those grounds.

Mr. Jennings: Feet on the ground!

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is an illusion to think that philosophy is abstruse and not concerned with things as they are. It is attempting to answer questions about what constitutes the essence of things. In debates on subjects such as these it is important to know what one is talking about. Philosophy can help us there.
This subsection was originally put in to apply to a situation: it is kept in to apply to a contingency. One contingency could be the restoration of Stormont as it was. If we did nothing else, that is what would happen. There are other contingencies which may be more or less desirable. Some form of legislative assembly, which would be different from Stormont, may well come into existence in the future. This Clause looks after that situation.
The alternatives in the future are fairly stark. They are: either a system which integrates Northern Ireland completely into the United Kingdom or some form of legislative assembly operating in Northern Ireland. Those are the only two alternatives that are likely to be before us. 
In the other argument, advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray), this was dismissed as legalistic. It seems to me, however, to have something to recommend it. There is an answer to it.
There is one source of all these rights and obligations under the Ireland Act of 1920, the Northern Ireland Act of 1972, and this Bill when it becomes an Act: namely, this Parliament. If the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland extends to Northern Ireland, that does not mean he derives his powers from Northern Ireland with regard to legislation that the Parliament of Northern Ireland has passed, from that Parliament alone. The ultimate source of all rights and obligations must be—if I may use

the phrase of the Leader of the Opposition—the imperial Parliament, not the local Parliament.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: Following the argument used by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), he ought to support Amendment No. 349. This makes it clear that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he did not derive the power derivatively through the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1972, would get it directly.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: One could spell that out in that way, I agree. It does not seem to me to be necessary to spell it out in that way because it is clear from an examination of the Statute.
The Amendment that the hon. Member has proposed, while it would not damage the Bill, would add nothing to it except three or four or more words.
The point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), that in some way Stormont—or a Stormont which would come into existence in the future—was deprived of the right to legislate against the EEC,is ill-founded. The Stormont Parliament never had that power. If it had been in existence today and passed a resolution saying that Northern Ireland did not want to become part of the EEC, that would be otiose and have no effect. There are hon. Members from the Northern Ireland Parliament sitting in this Parliament to express their views on legislation of that character.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) has spoken of the possibility of Stormont, or the Parliament of Northern Ireland, coming into existence at some hypothetical date in the future. Does it not follow—on the grounds of the philosophical argument on which the hon. Gentleman is so keen—that, if there is a question of the Government and the Parliament coming into existence in the future, they are not in existence at the present time?

8.45 p.m.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is a question of modes of existence. There can be two modes of existence; a mode of existence as a potential mode, and a mode of existence as an actual mode. I would say that the Northern Ireland Parliament


exists potentially, but it cannot be brought into being—

Mr. Jennings: Not actually.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: —not actually, using it in that Aristotelian sense—until certain events come about, one of which might be the lapse of that Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton may not be able to see it, but it is obvious to all.
To return to the intention of the Clause, as it makes clear, it is intended, first, to ease the restrictions imposed by Section 4 of the 1920 Act. That Section prevents the Northern Ireland Parliament from making laws in respect of treaties and matters which affect international relations. Community obligations which affect Northern Ireland can be either legislation on transferred matters or direct United Kingdom legislation which covers Northern Ireland. If it is United Kingdom legislation covering Northern Ireland, no difficulty will arise. It is only in the former case where Northern Ireland has legislation of its own similar to Westminster legislation that a problem could arise. It then could be held that that legislation could be amended by Westminster only if the purpose was to conform to the Community treaty.
That could seriously inconvenience a Northern Ireland Parliament of the future, and the legal position could become increasingly complex. So the Clause has that practical point in its favour. It provides that the limitations imposed by the 1920 Act shall not prevent the Northern Ireland Parliament from legislating to meet the requirements of Community treaties provided that there is no other statutory objection.
The second purpose of the Clause is to enable Northern Ireland Ministers and Departments, should they once again come into existence, to be designated under Clause 2(2). This power of designation was necessary for United Kingdom Ministers and Departments so that subordinate instruments could be made for the United Kingdom. Here again, this power of designation may be necessary for Ministers and Departments in Northern Ireland in the future for the making of appropriate regulations for Northern Ireland.
The third purpose of the Clause is to provide that the reference in Clause 2(2)

to statutory powers and duties shall include those arising under an Act of the Northern Ireland Parliament.
It may be thought that these provisions are unlikely to come into operation, but we cannot be the judge of that. They may be needed in the future or they may not be, but it is perfectly reasonable to include them in the Bill, and it is unnecessary to make such heavy weather of them.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: I rise to attempt to bring a little sanity into the debate. The confusion arising in the Committee comes from hon. Members not understanding the position of Stormont before its suspension. Everyone imagines that direct rule came into being on 24th March this year, but direct rule in certain services had been in operation since the existence of Stormont. We had the transferred services and the reserved services.
It is erroneous for the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) to say that the Stormont Parliament had not the right to decide whether Northern Ireland would enter the EEC. It never had the right to do so since it was a reserved service. It is completely false for the hon. Member to keep saying that Stormont was abolished. The hon. Member is still drawing his salary as a Member of Parliament for Stormont. He could not draw a salary for an institution which had been abolished.
When we in this House of Commons debate legislation relating to Northern Ireland it is like driving a motor car without shock absorbers—one is liable to have a bumpy ride. The last thing we want to do is to put abroad the impression that Stormont has been abolished, and indeed that we have agreed to its abolition. Stormont is suspended and during the suspension we must find an answer to the question of who is responsible under the various Acts.
We shall await the Minister's reply with interest. If we allow this provision to go through in its present form we may find ourselves in great difficulty if Stormont is not brought back into being quickly after 1st January, 1973. It must be remembered that the present Bill was drafted before the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Bill was introduced. Something will have to be done to get over this difficulty and we shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.

Mr. Powell: I wish to put one precise question to the Minister of State which I hope he will be able to answer. It refers to the period during which the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act shall be in force. Are the regulations during that period made under Clause 2(2) for the purpose of implementing the Community law to be made for the whole of the United Kingdom by United Kingdom Order in Council and by United Kingdom Ministers or, alternatively, are there to be any specific Northern Ireland regulations or Orders in Council or regulations and Orders in Council modified for Northern Ireland?
My hon. Friend will observe that, as the Bill stands, there is a difficulty in either case. In the first case it will mean that instead of the Minister responsible to this House of Commons for Northern Ireland affairs making the regulation and having to defend it to this House and to answer a debate, he will be cut out and it will be a United Kingdom Minister who will carry that responsibility. On the other hand, if he takes the course which is implicit in the drafting of the Bill, and which surely is the right course, that the special circumstances or the law of Northern Ireland require different or modified regulations or Orders in Council for Northern Ireland, under Schedule 2 those would have to be subject to the affirmative or negative procedure in an assembly which at present is prorogued and cannot function. I hope that my hon. Friend will address himself to this question, if he is not to accept that either these Amendments or some others are imperatively necessary.

Mr. Molyneaux: I, too, regret that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has left the Chamber. He seemed to imply that somehow our voting patterns were related to certain action or inaction on the part of hon. Members on this side. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) pointed out, that is not the case. If the hon. Member for Belfast, West cares to inspect our Division record, he will find that we were present in the Division lobby on many an occasion when he was absent, which is strange considering that the hon. Gentleman has such a passionate regard for the views of his constituents. If I may be excused the pun, it is surprising that the hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to

come here to represent their views in Parliament.
Two of my hon. Friends have been at great pains to attempt to enlighten my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) about the precise state of the Stormont Parliament. I suggest that in their speeches they have themselves fallen into error. They seemed to imply, perhaps by accident, that Stormont could be reconvened tomorrow or at any time during the existence of the Temporary Provisions Act if that was found necessary. I remind them that even after the passage of less than three months, three Stormont seats are vacant. I do not know what the position will be nearer the end of the current year, supposing that it is found necessary to bring back the Stormont Parliament to exercise some of the functions described in the subsection. Will it then have to go through the ritual of issuing writs and holding by-elections to fill the vacancies? If it comes to that, there is the great inconsistency in the Temporary Provisions Act which guarantees that no change shall be made in the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. Here again, there is a need for a great deal of clarification and explanation on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
Much has been said in the past about the shortcomings of the present arrangement with regard to the Government of Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton perhaps gave the impression that this Parliament was trying by this Amendment further to weaken the democratic processes in Northern Ireland. Goodness knows, they have suffered enough already. However, we know that that was not my hon. Friend's intention and I accept his assurance on that point.
The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland quite rightly have strong views about entry into the EEC. I shall not weary the Committee with a long catalogue of their reasons. I have listed them before. I mention only three. It will add yet another stretch of water between manufacturers in Northern Ireland and the centre of gravity of their market. Secondly, the pattern of agriculture in Northern Ireland is very different from that in Great Britain. Thirdly, the vast increase in the cost of animal


feeding-stuffs will affect Northern Ireland agriculture adversely. One point which made this prospect bearable for the people of Northern Ireland was their knowledge that the Government at Stormont were in some degree able to look after their detailed interests.
If we in this House can direct that a plebiscite should be held in Northern Ireland to decide the constitutional position, is it sensible to say that there should not be a plebiscite in Northern Ireland to decide whether the people should enter the EEC? I leave it to right hon. and hon. Members representing constituencies on this side of the Channel to decide whether it is right and logical to withhold such a tremendous privilege from the people of the United Kingdom in general.

9.0 p.m.

[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Channon): We are not debating whether or not Northern Ireland should join the Common Market—one or two of the speeches have ranged wider than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings)—or, with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), whether or not there should be a plebiscite on entry. We are debating the comparatively narrow point of what should be the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland.
As has been made clear by my right hon. Friend and other Ministers and by the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, that Parliament has been prorogued, not abolished. This Bill is intended to be permanent. We have to make permanent arrangements in it to deal with the situation in Northern Ireland both before and after the passage of the Temporary Provisions Act. It is true that the Bill was drafted before the passage of that Act, but its passage makes no fundamental change in the permanent position; nor should it make us wish to amend this Clause.
If the Temporary Provisions Act had not been passed, we would then need this subsection because the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, placed on the Northern Ireland Government certain restrictions to prevent it from legislating on certain matters. Under Section 4 (1) (4) the

Northern Ireland Parliament was not permitted to legislate on matters relating to treaties. Therefore, without this subsection, it could not have legislated in accordance with Clause 2 to implement obligations and other matters under treaties into which Her Majesty's Government have entered. That provision of the 1920 Act said that
Treaties, or any relations with foreign states
were matters specifically excluded from that Parliament's legislative powers.
Therefore, with or without the Temporary Provisions Act, if we did not have this subsection any legislation or Orders in Council to comply with Clause 2, even upon those matters which had been transferred to the Northern Ireland Parliament, would have had to be enacted at Westminster because the Northern Ireland Parliament would have been stopped from so legislating by Section 4 of the Government of Ireland Act. That is why it was necessary to have the first part of the subsection in the Bill.

Mr. McMaster: I am not clear about this. The Government of Ireland Act provides, in Section 4(4), that the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall not have power to enact treaties. But what we are dealing with is not so much treaties as the consequential legislation. The subsection does not deal with consequential legislation. I do not follow what my hon. Friend is saying. If that is the only reason for subsection (5), I do not see the necessity for having it in the Bill.

Mr. Jennings: rose—

Mr. Channon: I hesitate to say this to my hon. Friend but perhaps it would be better if I answered the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) rather than to give way to two of my hon. Friends consecutively.

Mr. Jennings: I was on the same point.

Mr. Channon: If my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East looks at Section 4of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, he will see that it does not say that the Government of Northern Ireland cannot make a treaty. What it says is that it shall not have power to make laws—I emphasise that—
in respect of the following matters in particular, namely, Treaties".


That is why it is necessary to enable the Northern Ireland Parliament to legislate in such a way that the limitation imposed by Section 4 of the Government of Ireland Act is removed.

Mr. Jennings: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would take notice of the point that regarding the limitations imposed by Section 4(1)(4) of the Government of Ireland Act the subsection goes on to say that these limitations
shall not be construed to prevent that Parliament"—
that is, the Northern Ireland Parliament—
on matters otherwise within their powers, from enacting provisions for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (2)".
Subsection (2)(a) and (b) deal with the principle not of making or agreeing treaties but, in the words of subsection (2)(a),
implementing any Community obligation of the United Kingdom.
The machinery of that phrase is embodied in Schedule 2. This is what we are talking about; not the making of treaties but the subordinate legislation for which the Northern Ireland Parliament would be responsible but which no longer exists for the purposes of carrying out that machinery.

Mr. Channon: With respect to my hon. Friend, the Northern Ireland Parliament at present is prorogued; it is not abolished. This is a permanent piece of legislation, it is hoped, but the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act is a temporary piece of legislation. No doubt in the future there will be matters which will have to be dealt with under Clause 2 of the Bill. It may be that Her Majesty may, by Orders in Council, have to make regulations under Clause 2(2) of the Bill, as may designated Ministers—though I suspect very few in the temporary provisions that exist at present—and it may be that such provisions will have to be included in order to meet the liabilities and obligations imposed upon us by entry to the EEC.
Therefore, this is a continuing duty upon the Parliament of Northern Ireland and unless the limitation imposed upon it by Section 4 of the Government of Ireland Act is to be waived in the ways provided in the subsection, it would not then have been competent for that Parliament so to legislate, and all these

matters, though they relate in all other ways to matters to be transferred for the Parliament of Northern Ireland to legislate upon, would have had to be legislated upon by the Parliament at Westminster rather than that of Northern Ireland. That is the primary reason for the subsection being in the Bill in the first instance.
Where our treaty obligations affect legislation which applies throughout the United Kingdom, there is no special difficulty in relation to Northern Ireland. For example, alterations in or additions to the relevant United Kingdom legislation, such as the Customs and Excise Acts and the Import Duties Acts, would apply in Northern Ireland as in Great Britain and no action in Northern Ireland would be required. But where the treaty obligation would affect legislation which is enacted in Northern Ireland under transfer powers, the difficulty I have outlined would mean that the United Kingdom Parliament would have to legislate on these matter although they have been transferred to the Northern Ireland Parliament to be dealt with.
Also it would have created curious problems of demarcation. There might have been a Statute dealing generally with the transferred matter but which had one or two provisions arising out of the treaty rules or obligations. It would have made the legal situation in Northern Ireland extremely complex and I think the Committee will see that there would have been no sensible justification for that. Where treaty rights and obligations have been accepted by the United Kingdom as a whole, there is no reason why the Northern Ireland Parliament should not continue to legislate for its own powers in accordance with the general principles accepted by the United Kingdom Parliament. That is why the first half of the subsection removes the limitation I have tried to outline.
The Northern Ireland Parliament can continue to legislate in respect of its transferred powers at the conclusion of the temporary provisions, regardless of whether the legislation arises from our accession to the European Communities. In normal circumstances the Northern Ireland Parliament could have enacted its own legislation empowering Northern Ireland Departments to make regulations for Community purposes. But powers


were taken in the second part of the subsection because they would not have been able to do these things until the Bill had received the Royal Assent. The Bill provides that the powers of subordinate legislation should be conferred upon Northern Ireland Ministers and Departments.
Another and more important reason for the second half of the subsection is that if the Northern Ireland Parliament provides powers of subordinate legislation they could have been used only to deal with regulations which clearly dealt with transferred matters. There are problems of demarcation, as I know many hon. Members, especially those representing Northern Ireland constituencies, will appreciate. The difficulty is of demarcation between matters which are "transferred" and matters which are "reserved".
The effect of the second Amendment referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) would be specifically to provide for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to be designated and to to be able to make regulations. The Amendment is wholly superfluous. Subsection (2) already contains powers for Ministers of the Crown to be designated and to make regulations. It would not be harmful to make the provision but it would be superfluous, and it is not necessary to write the provisions specifically into Clause 2(5). The situation I have described is, of course, affected by the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act. It is a temporary Act and all its provisions, as hon. Members who were present through the long night we debated it will remember, are based on the assumption that in due course the Stormont Parliament will resume its duties. This is one of the reasons why we need the subsection. I would submit to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East that he would not wish to argue the contrary proposition that it will not resume or seek to take away from the Northern Ireland Parliament in the future a power to legislate which it always had in the past.
It therefore follows that legislation drafted while the Act is in force should be drafted as though the Stormont Parliament was still operative. The European Communities Bill should not alter the

normal constitutional position of the Northern Ireland Parliament and Government.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. McMaster: The whole debate has taken on a new aspect, particularly when we refer to Section 4 of the Government of Ireland Act. Is my hon. Friend telling the Committee that he believes that the temporary provisions will have expired by the end of this year? Many of the provisions giving effect to the Treaty of Rome will have to be enacted soon after 1st January, 1973. If it is envisaged that the temporary provisions will continue until 31st March or even, as is provided for in Section 1(5) of the Government of Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, a year later, the whole purpose of subsection (5) will have run out. When is the Government's intention that the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act should come to an end?

Mr. Channon: I shall have to come to that point in answer to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). My hon. Friend and others concerned with the matter know well that the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act expires at the end of a period of one year beginning at the passing of that Act. It is true, and a fair point, that regulations will have to be made during the intervening period—not many, but some. Under Section 1 of that Act all functions which belonged to the Governor, the Governor in Council, the Government or any Minister or head of a Northern Ireland Department are to be discharged by the Secretary of State while the Act remains in force, unless the Secretary of State directs that a Department shall discharge its functions.
As to subordinate legislation, the effect of the provision in the Bill is that the Secretary of State, on matters I will not go into tonight, can make orders under Clause 4(3) to bring Northern Ireland legislation into line with United Kingdom legislation. He can also be designated to make regulations under Clause 2(2). However, it is the common constitutional practice in Northern Ireland for Departments rather than Ministers to be empowered to make subordinate legislation. That is made clear in Section 8 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920.
Perhaps surprisingly to us, it is drafted in terms of such powers being exercised by Departments. Both United Kingdom and Northern Ireland legislation which delegates powers of subordinate legislation normally refers to Northern Ireland Departments rather than Northern Ireland Ministers. It would therefore be usual for Northern Ireland Departments to be designated to make regulations under Clause 2(2). There is no reason why they should not be so designated before or after the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act is in force. This will mean that Northern Ireland Departments will be carrying out their normal functions as far as possible in spite of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act. I am sure that is welcome to my hon. Friend and other Northern Ireland Members.
Any regulations made will have the further advantage that they will appear in their proper place in the series of Northern Ireland statutory rules. Most important of all, perhaps, when the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act is repealed there will be no need to take action under the Bill to adjust to the new situation. Under Section 1 of that Act Northern Ireland Departments are subject to the direction and control of my right hon. Friend, who is answerable to this House of Commons.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West asked how such regulations could be made. They can be made by Departments of the Government of Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend then rightly pointed to Schedule 2. I am not sure how far I should be in order in dealing with Schedule2 in detail. Of course, my right hon. Friend will recall our debates on the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, and will see, under paragraph 4(5) in particular of the Schedule of that Act but also under the whole of paragraph 4, what happens to provisions similar to those in Schedule 2 of this Bill.
He will see what happens to Statutory Instruments coming into operation by powers conferred in this way. Paragraph 4(5) of the Schedule to the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act deals with instruments of this kind.
This is an extremely complicated matter and I do not wish to weary the Committee at length. I believe I have shown that it is right and in the interests of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, which is only prorogued and not abolished, that subsection (5) should remain in the Bill. Amendment No. 349 is unnecessary. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton will now feel that subsection (5) should remain in the Bill.

Mr. Michael Foot: The Committee is indebted to the Minister of State for Northern Ireland for the way in which he has stated an extremely complicated matter to us. He has done his best to get the Government out of an awkward hole. What we have to discover is whether he has succeeded. We have not a great deal of time to do so because many of us wish to clear the Amendments to Clause 2 out of the way so that the whole of tomorrow's proceedings, brief as they will be, can be devoted to the extremely important question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". We are all in difficulty on that account. But the hon. Gentleman has certainly done his best.
We are not here to discuss whether the people of Northern Ireland are in favour of joining the EEC. Like the people of England, Scotland and Wales, they have not been asked their opinion, so that does not arise. Nor are we discussing whether the Parliament of Northern Ireland has been abolished and what is the proper term to use to describe the situation in which it is placed. We are not saying that the Parliament of Northern Ireland is abolished. It is not abolished in any technical sense, but suspended, prorogued, not in operation. That alters the situation in our belief, but not in the belief of the Government.
The proposition which the hon. Gentleman has been seeking to put to us, although he disguised it skilfully, was that the position of Northern Ireland and its Parliament in relation to this Bill is the same as it was before the passing of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, and that the Government were so clever and their draftsmen so perspicacious that they foresaw all the possibilities which would arise when this Bill was on the Statute Book, even though no one had any idea at the time


of what would be in the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act. That is what the hon. Gentleman has been trying to describe to us.
Here, therefore, we have, apparently, subsection (5) of Clause 2 and Schedule 2 put into the Bill to deal with a situation which did not envisage direct rule of Northern Ireland at all and did not envisage not merely the abolition of Stormont but its prorogation or suspension or any of the other interferences which the British Parliament has undertaken to deal with the Northern Ireland situation.
Of course, all this is another tribute to the immaculate nature of this Bill. So skilful were the draftsmen that they not only dealt with a matter of novel importance and significance which has never before been dealt with by the Government and their draftsmen but devised a Bill which not merely required no amendment of the matters contained in it but no amendment to deal with matters which were not in the cognisance of the Government when it was drafted. Therefore the hon. Gentleman has been sent along here, and he has done it extremely well, to try to persuade us that the change in the whole situation does not require even the slightest alteration in the Bill. We do not believe it.
One of the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman has been in is that he has not been able satisfactorily to answer the dilemma presented by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). We are still confronted by the situation over the Schedule which was referred to by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster). The Schedule lays down that the Parliament of Northern Ireland should act in certain situations. It says that certain instruments should become operative by the process of being presented to the Northern Ireland Parliament. But there is no Northern Ireland Parliament to which such things can be presented, whether that Parliament is prorogued, abolished, not in existence, or whatever. It is in a state of, not animated suspension, but a state where it cannot have any effect whatever on any statutory instrument.
We are now invited to pass a Bill which will say that it is perfectly proper that we should solemnly decide that we send to Northern Ireland, or that there shall

be provisions made for the Northern Ireland Parliament to deal with, statutory instruments that will go to it, even though we know there is no such body to deal with those statutory instruments. That is the position, and we say it is not a satisfactory way of dealing with things because there ought to be a clear arrangement about who is to carry out these operations now that there is no Northern Ireland Parliament to carry out the operations which the Bill says it should carry out. It is not there to do so, so how will it be done?
We do not say that our Amendment is the best way of dealing with this. We say that we think it is one safeguard, although it may not be the best way. I do not say that the best way is to abolish the whole of the subsection; I only know that it is the only way to force the Government to look at the matter and present us with a proper Amendment to deal with a situation which the Government could not possibly have envisaged when they introduced the Bill. Therefore, if we invite the Committee to vote for the Amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr Jennings) everyone can join us.
There is no question of a Division on Ireland; indeed, by this we can unite Ireland, not in a sense which would be offensive to the hon. Member for Belfast, East, because we want him, too. We can invite all men of good will to deal with this in a proper constitutional fashion. There is no division on the question. All hon. Members will be doing is asking the Government to ensure that they take away the parts of the Bill dealing with Northern Ireland and come back with Amendments which will deal with the post-provisional Act situation in a way which will meet the situation that prevailed earlier.
If the Government try to persuade us through the hon. Gentleman, who says that nothing needs to be altered or changed, then this is merely confirmation of the fact that they intend to force through any provisions in this Bill, however ridiculous they may be, rather than risk the conceivable possibility of a Report stage. On that basis I ask everyone on all sides of the Committee to agree with us. I would have thought that the best course for the Government would be to accept the Amendment, and then they would have the time for reflection


which, everyone knows and on their own confession, they could not possibly have had before introducing this part of the Bill.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided:  Ayes 266, Noes 282.

Division No. 217.]
AYES
[9.30 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Allen, Scholefield
Freeson, Reginald
Maginnis, John E.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Garrett, W. E.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Armstrong, Ernest
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Ashley, Jack
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Marks, Kenneth


Ashton, Joe
Golding, John
Marquand, David


Atkinson, Norman
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Marsden, F.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marten, Neil


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Baxter, William
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Meacher, Michael


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Bennett, James (Glasgow,Bridgeton)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mendelson, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamling, William
Mikardo, Ian


Biffen, John
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Millan, Bruce


Bishop, E. S.
Hardy, Peter
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harper, Joseph
Milne, Edward


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Booth, Albert
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Moate, Roger


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hattersley, Roy
Molloy, William


Bradley, Tom
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Molyneaux, James


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Heffer, Eric S.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Buchan, Norman
Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshewe)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Horam, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Moyle, Roland


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Murray, Ronald King


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Oakes, Gordon


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hunter, Adam
O'Halloran, Michael


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
O'Malley, Brian


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Oram, Bert


Cohen, Stanley
Janner, Greville
Orbach, Maurice


Coleman, Donald
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley


Concannon, J. D.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Oswald, Thomas


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Padley, Walter


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
John, Brynmor
Paget, R. T.


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Palmer, Arthur


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson. Walter (Derby, S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Pavitt, Laurie


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Judd, Frank
Pendry, Tom


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kaufman, Gerald
Pentland, Norman


Deakins, Eric
Kelley, Richard
Perry, Ernest G.


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kerr, Russell
Pounder, Rafton


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kinnock, Neil
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Dempsey, James
Lambie, David
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Doig, Peter
Lamborn, Harry
Prescott, John


Dormand, J. D.
Lamond, James
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Latham, Arthur
Price, William (Rugby)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leadbitter, Ted
Probert, Arthur


Driberg, Tom
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rankin, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Leonard, Dick
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Dunnett, Jack
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Richard, Ivor


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Ellis, Tom
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


English, Michael 
Lipton, Marcus
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(B'rc'n &amp; R'dnor)


Evans, Fred
Lomas, Kenneth
Roper, John


Ewing, Henry
Loughlin, Charles
Rose, Paul B.


Faulds, Andrew
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Fell, Anthony
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rowlands, Ted


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sandelson, Neville


Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
McBride, Neil
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McCartney, Hugh
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
McElhone, Frank
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McGuire, Michael
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Foley, Maurice
Mackie, John
Sillars, James


Foot, Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Silverman, Julius


Ford, Ben
McMaster, Stanley





Skinner, Dennis
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Small, William
Tinn, James
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Tomney, Frank
Whitehead, Phillip


Spearing, Nigel
Torney, Tom
Whitlock, William


Spriggs, Leslie
Tuck, Raphael
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Stallard, A. W.
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Varley, Eric G.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wainwright, Edwin
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Strang, Gavin
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Woof, Robert


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wallace, George



Swain, Thomas
Watkins, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Taverne, Dick
Weitzman, David
Mr. James Hamilton and


Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. James A. Dunn.


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)




NOES


Adley, Robert
Eden, Sir John
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kershaw, Anthony


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Emery, Peter
Kimball, Marcus


Astor, John
Eyre, Reginald
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Awdry, Daniel
Fidler, Michael
Kinsey, J. R.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Kirk, Peter


Balniel, Lord
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kitson, Timothy


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fookes, Miss Janet
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Batsford, Brian
Fortescue, Tim
Knox, David


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Foster, Sir John
Lamborn, Harry


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fowler, Norman
Lamont, Norman


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fox, Marcus
Lane, David


Benyon, W.
Fry, Peter
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Galbraith, Hn. T. G
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Biggs-Davison, John
Gardner, Edward
Le Marchant, Spencer


Blaker, Peter
Gibson-Watt, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Boscawen, Robert
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Longden, Gilbert


Bossom, Sir Clive
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Loveridge, John


Bowden, Andrew
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B
Luce, R. N.


Braine, Bernard
Goodhart, Philip
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bray, Ronald
Goodhew, Victor
MacArthur, Ian


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gorst, John
McCrindle, R. A.


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gower, Raymond
McLaren, Martin


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gray, Hamish
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Bryan, Paul
Green, Alan
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N &amp; M)
Grylls, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Buck, Antony
Gummer, Selwyn
Maddan, Martin


Burden, F. A.
Gurden, Harold
Madel, David


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mather, Carol


Carlisle, Mark
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maude, Angus


Cary, Sir Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Channon, Paul
Hannam. John (Exeter)
Mawby, Ray


Chapman, Sydney
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Haselhurst, Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Churchill, W. S.
Havers, Michael
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hawkins, Paul
Miscampbell, Norman


Clarke, William (Surrey. E.)
Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Clegg, Walter
Heseltine, Michael
Money, Ernle


Cockeram, Eric
Hicks, Robert
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Cooke, Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Monro, Hector


Coombs, Derek
Hiley, Joseph
Montgomery, Fergus


Cooper, A. E.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
More, Jasper


Cordle, John
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Holland, Philip
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Cormack, Patrick
Holt, Miss Mary
Morrison, Charles


Costain, A. P.
Hordern, Peter
Mudd, David


Critchley, Julian
Hornby, Richard
Murton, Oscar


Crouch, David
Hornsby-Smith. Rt.Hn. DamePatricia
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Crowder, F. P.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Neave, Airey


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hunt, John
Normanton, Tom


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Iremonger, T. L.
Nott, John


Dean, Paul
James, David
Onslow, Cranley


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jessel, Toby
Osborn, John


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Drayson, G. B.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Dykes, Hugh









Pardoe, John
Scott, Nicholas
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Parkinson, Cecil
Scott-Hopkins, James
Trew, Peter


Peel, John
Sharples, Richard
Tugendhat, Christopher


Percival, Ian
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Simeons, Charles
Vickers, Dame Joan


Pink, R. Bonner
Sinclair, Sir George
Waddington, David


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Soref, Harold
Wall, Patrick


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Speed, Keith
Walters, Dennis


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Spence, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Raison, Timothy
Sproat, Iain
Warren, Kenneth


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Stainton, Keith
Weatherill, Bernard


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Redmond, Robert
Steel, David
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Reed, Laurance (Bolton E.)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Wiggin, Jerry


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Wilkinson, John


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Winterton, Nicholas


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Stokes, John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Tapsell, Peter
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Ridsdale, Julian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Woodnutt, Mark


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Worsley, Marcus


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Tebbit, Norman
Younger, Hn. George


Rost, Peter
Temple, John M.



Royle, Anthony
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Thomas, John Stradling (Mon mouth)
Mr. Hugh Rossi and


Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Thomas, Rt. Hn.Peter (Hendon, S.)
Mr. Michael Jopling.



Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Michael Foot: In accordance with the Chairman's statement at the beginning of our proceedings I beg to move as a manuscript Amendment a modified form of Amendment No. 429, in page 4, line 25 at end add:
(7) Nothing in the foregoing subsections shall enable regulations to be made allocating the representation of the Houses of Parliament at the European Parliament which representation shall only be effected in accordance with the following subsection.
(8) The lists of names of the proposed representatives of the Houses of Parliament at the European Parliament shall be laid in draft before, and shall be subject to the approval of, the House of Commons.
The Amendment is being taken thanks to the response to the representations that we made to the Chairman of Ways and Means. The meaning of this Amendment to line 25 is the same as that of the original Amendment to line 1, and the effect of it, if carried, will be the same. I hope, therefore, that it is in a form understandable to the Committee generally.
Under the guillotine we have available to us tonight an hour and a quarter. This is a subject which could be debated for much longer than that, because this is the first occasion during our debates on the Bill that we have had an opportunity to discuss in depth the form of representation or the ways in which the acceptance of representations should be made

to the European Assembly, as it is correctly called, or the European Parliament.
This is the first opportunity that we have had to discuss that matter, and yet we shall have to compress our debate into the derisory amount of time available to us. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because if we do not do that and conclude our debate before the guillotine falls at 11 o'clock we shall invade the time available tomorrow for the important debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Fell: I should like to get this straight, and perhaps the Chair could help. Is it the case that we can invade tomorrow's time for as long as we like?

Mr. Foot: We could, if we wished, continue the debate on this subject until 7.30 tomorrow evening, but if we did that would usurp the whole of the time which could be given to debating whether the Clause should stand part of the Bill. That would be deeply offensive to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and, indeed, would be an improper thing for the Committee to do. This is an illustration of the burdens imposed upon the Committee by the Government's insistence on curtailing the debate.
9.45 p.m.
We are told that we have had plenty of time to discuss all new matters. However, discussion, not merely of the question of the British representation in the


European Assembly but also of whether such representation should be acceptable to the House of Commons, is to be curtailed in the manner I have described. It is a scandalous way for a Bill of this importance to be pushed through.
It is all the more scandalous in the light of what happened last Thursday. This is the first opportunity I have had of saying this since last Thursday's events. The right hon. Member for Wolver-hampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) referred to this at the beginning of our proceedings. We on this side regard what happened last Thursday as an added offence. It was an additional interference by the Government with the rights of those who want to criticise this Measure in debate and an interference with those who want to vote on matters of specific importance.
The Government denied us the right to vote. We had to choose whether we would vote on one Amendment or on another. Two important Amendments had been selected for debate. Because of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's tactics we were denied the right to vote on both Amendments. This was an aggravation of the injuries inflicted upon the House of Commons by the guillotine procedure.
How a European Assembly is to operate, its composition, what powers it is to have and whether it is to be given extra powers over the flimsy powers it now possesses are questions which have been widely debated in the Press and elsewhere, although not in the House of Commons, in recent weeks and months. I will not lay down what I think should be the conclusion on these matters. I am not saying that I want the European Assembly to be given greater powers and that that is one way of dealing with the undemocratic nature of the Brussels Commission and of the operation of the Council of Ministers, because I believe that there are dangers in that proposal in the sense that the stronger the European Assembly was made, the greater would be the injury inflicted upon the rights of the British House of Commons.
Long before we reach that stage we are confronted with the position that the Members of the House of Commons will have to decide what representation is to be sent from the British Parliament or from Britain altogether to the European

Assembly, from 1st January onwards, assuming that the Government's will is paramount and that we join the Community. From 1st January some decision will have to be made about our representation in the European Assembly.
The Government have made proposals to deal with the situation. The Government's proposal was that the matter should be dealt with through the usual channels—[Interruption.]—and that there should be an arrangement whereby discussions took place between the usual channels to fix not merely the names of people who would be sent there—[Interruption.]—but also how many representatives from another place should go to the European Assembly.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: This is how they fix it.

Mr. Foot: If my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) could manage to subdue the chorus for a while it might assist the process.
The suggestion was made that a considerable number of Members from another place should represent the British Parliament and Britain in the European Assembly. There was also a suggestion that there would have to be a number of Members of Parliament who would have to be absent, who would be given leave of absence from their duties in this House to participate for the lengthy period required—about 100 days throughout the parliamentary year—and when a number of Members of Parliament would have to be paired in order to deal with this situation. That was the way in which the Government thought this matter could be dealt with.
Whatever we may think of the future powers that a European Assembly should or may have, that is not a proper way of dealing with the matter. The proper way is that any proposals about the form of representation in the European Assembly and the precise list of Members who are to be sent there should be subject to decision by the House of Commons. That does not seem very much to ask for. It should be included in the Bill.
The simplest way for the hon. and learned Gentleman to deal with this Amendment would be to say "Yes". Never has such a modest Amendment been placed upon the Order Paper. All


it asks is that proposals for settling the form of representation in the Assembly, and the names of those to be sent there should be subject to the House of Commons.
When we set up a Kitchen Committee the names are brought forward. The House of Commons is entitled to decide the matter. Amendments can be put forward. When we appoint any of the other Committees the matter is brought forward for the House to settle.

Mr. Rippon: There is no need to make legislative provision for that.

Mr. Foot: We have legislative provision because we want to ensure that the Government do not proceed as they have suggested. They have suggested that this matter should be dealt with through the usual channels. We felt this was a matter that should be dealt with in the open; that we should have discussions about the form of representation and about the individuals; that both matters should be subject to the decision of the House of Commons.
On the question of form, it is no good hon. Members thinking that this is a trivial affair. The Parliaments of the Six have different methods of dealing with this situation. Some of their methods might be thought intolerable, in this House for example.
The French Parliament has a method of deciding the representation to be sent to the European Parliament. Under that system it secures that the Communist representatives shall be excluded from such representation. That is one way of doing it. It could be done in that way in this House. I am not sure how they achieve that result in France.
In Italy the representation is subject to decision by the Parliament. It is done on an elected basis. They do not exclude the Italian Communist Party or any party represented in the Italian Parliament.
Both the French and the Italian Parliaments think it is right that there should be a proper system of election. The Members who are sent from those Parliaments to the European Assembly are elected by the Parliaments concerned. They have different methods in the other Parliaments, where they are nominated in a different manner. But in each case

it is done with Parliament giving its full approval.
By this Amendment we are saying we should have the same rights in two respects. First, we want the understanding that the Government—if this Amendment is passed—will have to do two things. They will have to consult Parliament at some stage—not necessarily before the end of this Bill; we are letting them off very lightly, in my opinion. It should all have been done in the Bill. The form should be in the Bill.
If the Amendment is passed, the Government will have to bring forward proposals on the manner in which Britain is to be represented in the European Assembly. For example there is the question whether the House of Lords is to be represented. Some of us do not think it proper that non-elected representatives should play a part, and this is a matter which should be settled by the House of Commons.
Then there is the question of a considerable number of Members of Parliament being absent from their duties in the House over a long period. I well remember the arguments during the war when Mr. Malcolm MacDonald and others were given lengthy leave of absence from the House of Commons. Important constitutional questions arose whether it was right for the House of Commons to decide that the constituents of certain hon. Members should be deprived of their representation in the House for a considerable period. I am doubtful whether it is proper for the House of Commons to say that the 30 or 40 constituencies that may be affected should be deprived of their Members of Parliament for a considerable period. Whatever one may think of the way in which it is settled, it must be settled by proper proposals which are debatable and can be voted upon.
Further, names will have to be submitted as they have to be submitted for Committees of the House. It would be a change from the way in which nominations are made to many bodies, but we say that appointments to the European Assembly are of greater significance and should be made not through the usual channels but with the approval of the House of Commons.
The question of how this Parliament is to be represented in another Parliament is surely a matter for this Parliament to decide. That is all we are asking. I ask the righthon. and learned Gentleman to accept our extremely modest suggestions. They do not commit him to any view about the Assembly or to any names or numbers. They commit him to nothing other than bringing the proposals before the House before they are accepted.
That is a proposition which most hon. Members expected to see in the Bill. We are seeking to remedy this obvious oversight. If the Government cannot accept this simple Amendment they will confirm more clearly than ever that they are more determined to drive the Bill through in its present form than they are to protect the rights of the House which the Bill invades. The Government would be making the rights of the House and, therefore, the rights of the people subordinate to the exigencies of the Government timetable. That would be a most discreditable reason for opposing the Amendment.
Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman has rejected the possibility of amendment on a whole range of matters I hope he will say "Yes" to this Amendment, so that we can proceed. If by any mischance the right hon. and learned Gentleman rejects the Amendment, the House and the country will draw the conclusion that the Government are not prepared to commit themselves to submitting questions of the form and representation of the European Assembly to the House of Commons.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I was a little disappointed at the beginning of the speech by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) when he intimated that in his view this discussion must end tonight. I appreciate his reasons and the importance of a debate on the Question, "That the Clause shall stand part of the Bill", but it so happens that on these occasions most of the points have been made in the various Amendments to the Clause—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered, That the Order of the Day relating to House of Commons (Services) and the Motions relating to Parliamentary Expenses may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Jopling.]

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I was saying that the subject to which the Amendment related was a very important matter. It has excited very considerable interest outside. To date, that interest has been insufficiently reflected in our proceedings. It may well be that if this is not the occasion for a major debate on it, steps should be taken to initiate such a debate.
We start from two clear premises. The first is that the decision-making machinery of the European Economic Community as at present constituted is demonstrably, almost flagrantly, insufficiently democratic. The second premise which follows from the first is that if, in the event, this country entered the Community it would be both our interest and our duty to strengthen—

Mr. Foot: No.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member for Ebb Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) dissents too soon. I had not concluded my proposition. It would be both our interest and our duty, in one way or another, to strengthen the democratic basis of the Community's decision-making machinery.
There are two possible methods, one of which will appeal to the hon. Gentleman and the other of which will not. They may not be wholly mutually exclusive. One is to strengthen the control of the affairs and decision-making machinery of the Community by the national Parliaments. The other is to strengthen it by the development of the powers and jurisdiction of the European Assembly, sometimes known as the European Parliament.
It is clear that there is no efficient parliamentary underpinning at the moment. That is clear from any study of the matter. It is clear, for example, from Mr. Michael Niblock's study of the national Parliaments in relation to the Community. It is clear also from the recent Vedel Report in relation to the European Parliament.
At the moment the European Parliament is a very shadowy assembly. It is given very vestigial powers under the treaty and exercises none of the basic powers and duties which are the essential ingredients of a parliamentary institution. If in the future the European Parliament continues to exercise no greater powers than those which it possesses at present, I am not sure that the Amendment is very meaningful. It will then not be a matter of selecting the eager applicants for membership of the European Parliament. We shall be right back to the concept of the Middle Ages. We shall be conscripting those latter-day Knights of the shires and compelling them to go. It will be an unwelcome and unrewarding assignment if that is the case.
In all these matters we are looking at the long term. Our commitment under the treaty is in perpetuity. Then we have to consider the other possibility, which is that the European Assembly might grow in power, together with its representative institutions. In the last to years it has made some modest advances in its jurisdiction. It has acquired some modest advances in the context of "own resources" and the like. It has not been a very marked advance over a period of 12 years, and there has been no advance as yet towards what the treaty prescribes; that is to say, direct democratic elections of the European Parliament.
But we have now had in recent months the report of the Vedal Committee, which recommends both an extension of the powers of the European Parliament and a move towards a more representative and democratic form of election. Therefore, we must look at this matter in the light of the possibility that over a time these things may come to pass. There may be an accretion of power to this at present vestigial Assembly and there may even be in the long run some

approach to the provisions of the treaty for direct elections.
Probably the safest assumption for us to make, however, is that there will be some increase in the powers of the European Parliament but that the question of direct elections will be deferred, if not to the Greek kalends, at any rate for a considerable time. If that be a probable or even possible assumption, it is extremely important that we in this Parliament have the machinery for making an effective representation in the European Parliament, which is not an easy thing to do.
As one can see from a study of the contemporary documents, of the Vedel Report, it is not a task in which the existing Community members have succeeded. There is great difficulty, we read, in getting high quality Members of Parliament to sit in the European Parliament.

Mr. Fell: That is not surprising.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Of course not, and for two reasons. First, it is a shadowy assembly, exercising little power, and people do not wish to spend their time on these abortive deliberations. They do not wish, if I might recall an observation that I made in an earlier debate, to be parliamentary geldings grazing impotently in Strasbourg.
The second reason, of course, is that they are in great difficulties vis-àis their duties in their home Parliaments and to their own constituencies. Therefore, what has tended to happen, as we can read in the documents, in the Vedel Report and so on, is that the membership of the European Parliament tends to be confined to, or to be to a considerable extent composed of, enthusiasts for the so-called European concept, who do not carry much weight in the national Parliaments from which they come. That is the focal point of the matter—[Interruption.] No, no personalities. I am sure that anybody who went from these benches would represent the interests of the country and this House of Commons.
We have to see it in this light: that if we are to be members of the Community it is necessary to devise machinery to ensure that we shall be the exceptions to this melancholy rule, to ensure that the


people who go there will be people of standing in this House and people who are able to ensure that progress to a more democratic basis of decision-making and to ensure that the traditions of parliamentary democracy and parliamentary institutions, which after all were cradled in this country, are reflected by those who speak there on our behalf. That is the problem. We have to see what is the best method of solving it. We await with interest what my right hon. and learned Friend suggests as to how it should be solved. The method suggested in the Amendment seems to be a method which, if to some extent novel in the constitutions of overseas representation in this country, is a novel solution, in so far as it is novel, for a very novel situation. There would never have been so important an assignment overseas for representatives of this House as to sit in that Parliament if its powers grow, as well they may.
10.15 p.m.
There is much to be said for doing what is suggested in the Amendment and throwing this thing before the House of Commons so that it is not decided simply on the basis of the selection of hon. Members either because they think they can spare the time or because their con-

stituents are not so exigent as the constituents of others.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Or because they are yes-men.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Let us put it rather that they are not fired with that parliamentary enthusiasm which would enable them to give a reasonably robust and independent interpretation of the country's needs.
Therefore, to achieve these things it would be reasonable to adopt some such formula as is in the Amendment. Certainly it is very difficult to see what harm could come of it. It is very difficult for the House of Commons to say that there is any great or lurking danger in the House of Commons considering which of its Members should participate in these important duties.
Therefore, I add my voice in support of the Amendment because it is a reasonable approach, unless my right hon. and learned Friend can show cause to the contrary, and I reiterate the plea I made previously that we can, at some more convenient time, canvass at greater length and in more depth the problems which this matter raises for the House of Commons and for the country if we should enter the Community.

Mr. George Darling: The last occasion on which I took part in a debate on the Bill was on Second Reading. I followed the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) in explaining, as best I could, why I could not support the Bill. One of the reasons was that the Government—we still do not have any indication of their views on this—would not face the problem of how we dealt with the European Parliament, so-called, this consultative, advisory assembly without any powers, and how the Government proposed to arrange for representation from this country to the European Parliament. We still have no views from the Government.
I should like to be a devil's advocate for a moment. I want to assume that the Bill has been passed. I am not supporting it but assuming that it has been passed and that we are now involved in the European set-up, and that the House of Commons must now decide how it makes its representation to the European Parliament. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken about the Vedel Report in which it is proposed that there should be two developments before we go ahead to direct elections to the European Parliament. One is that the European Parliament should have what is called the power of co-decision with the European Commission and the Council of Ministers. In other words, when the Commission and the Ministers go to the European Parliament for a discussion about their directives and regulations and so forth, if the European Parliament does not agree the regulations will be taken back for reconsideration. There is, therefore, a sort of suspended power of veto over the Commission and the Council of Ministers. It is weak, but it is a step towards democratic control.
There is another set of proposals which the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) did not refer to. These were put forward by the Socialist Members of the European Parliament. They go very much further than the Vedel proposals. They would bring the whole of the Commission's and the Council of Ministers' powers under the control of the reorganised European Parliament. If there is to be a reorganised European Parliament it cannot be on the basis of 36

appointed Members from this House. I would agree with anybody who objects to the patronage of the Whips deciding who should go. Admittedly, I am one of those enjoying the patronage of the Whips in the Council of Europe—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: For the time being.

Mr. Darling: I am trying to do a job of work there, and I think that even my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) would not object to my going provided I was properly appointed. But if the proposal is to put the Commission and the Council of Ministers under the democratic control of a properly appointed or elected European Parliament it cannot be done on the basis of 36 people going from the British Parliament to Strasbourg, where, unfortunately, the Parliament is situated. It is a stupid place for it to be, but we will not go into that now.
If there is to be democratic control it will be exercised on the basis of party political conflict. We cannot expect Socialist representatives from the United Kingdom to rubber-stamp a proposal by the Conservative Government purely because they are United Kingdom representatives. These matters must be fought out on a party political basis. To send 36 Members from this country would mean, I imagine, that the United Kingdom delegation would consist of 18 Conservatives, 16 Socialists and a couple of Liberals. We do not want to be nasty to the Liberals and, therefore, we must inflate their representation. But the 16 Socialists must be elected by the Labour Party in this House. They will not be appointed by the Whips.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Do not kid yourself.

Mr. Darling: There is another factor to be taken into account. If we are to have party political conflict it is impossible for 16 Labour Members to cover all the activities of the European Economic Community.
The situation is even worse for the smaller countries. I have discussed this with representatives of the Irish Republican Labour Party. They will have one or two members among the 10 Irish representatives in the European Parliament. I could be rude at this point but I will


not; I will only ask how the dickens one or two Irish Labour representatives can cover all the activities of the EEC Commission, the Parliament and everything else. It is impossible.
Willy Brandt has come up with the idea that the number of representatives should be doubled, giving us 72. That would make it much easier for us to have representation not in the Parliament itself but in the committees of the European Parliament where the democratic control will actually be exercised. The figure of 72 would allow 33 representatives from the Labour Party. They would find it far easier to play their part and they would be far more effective in the committees of the European Parliament, where the co-decision principles of the Vedel Commission would be exercised, than would 16. We would be able to man the committees far more effectively than we could in the way proposed.
But the 33 representatives must be elected by the Labour Members of this House. They cannot be appointed by the Whips. Such an election would help enormously to bring about democratic control over the European Parliament. The most important thing is to make sure either that the Vedel proposals are accepted, to get the Commission and the Council of Ministers properly under democratic control by the European Parliament, or to have accepted and put into operation the Socialist proposals for far greater democratic control. That would be far better, but it is not reasonable at present.
Unless we receive reasonable answers to our points about how we bring about democratic control over the EEC, we should delay the Bill as much as we can. The Amendment is far too weak and ineffective, but I support it because at least it is a step in the right direction.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Mr. Rippon: The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) has indicated how widely the debate might range. It would be no good our hoping that we could settle all the maters he raised before we were in the Com-

munity. The questions that will be raised, for example, in debates on the implementation of various proposals of the Vedel Committee will take a great deal of time and we want to participate in them. Important as these matters are, they are not matters to be dealt with in the Bill, which is concerned with the need for changes in the provisions in our domestic law to comply with our treaty obligations.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) emphasised the need for Parliament to control the constitution and the selection of the United Kingdom delegation to the European Assembly, which he said was the Amendment's purpose. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Kitchen Committee and the other Committees and delegations which the House appoints. But Parliament retains control over these matters. We can debate the constitution and selection of the Committee dealing with our kitchen affairs if we wish. We can throw it out at any time we like, and it may be that many of us would wish to do so from time to time. I had a particularly bad sausage this evening. But it is absurd to think that these are matters which can be regulated by an Act of Parliament.
As the hon. Gentleman himself demonstrated, each national Parliament makes its own provisions about the selection of its representatives to the European Parliament. He was concerned about non-elected Members, about the position of Members of the House of Lords. All these are matters that can be discussed by the House without any need for statutory provisions which would bind our successors as well as ourselves. After all, there are representatives from the Belgian Senate, which is composed of a number of people not directly elected. There are plenty of variations in the methods of appointment and selection adopted by the various national Parliaments.
This is one of the illustrations of the way in which we retain our parliamentary sovereignty. There is no need to fetter ourselves in any way. There is no need to make any provisionin the Bill. As far as the future is concerned, the present Government have reaffirmed the Labour Government's endorsement of the


Saragat declaration, and presumably the former members of the Labour Government still adhere to it. It looked forward to the time when there would be the development of the institutions and provisions for direct election in accordance, as the Labour Government said, with the provisions of the Rome Treaty.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that we have control here. Will he take into account that the Patronage Secretary made proposals to the Opposition that the matter should be settled through the usual channels, in which case the House of Commons would not have had control and the matter would have gone through without any final say whatever by the House? Our response was to say "No". We thought that the matter should be dealt with in the Bill. The Government could have put down an Amendment but they did not. That is why this Amendment was put down. We think that the matter should not be settled through the usual channels but that the House should retain its final authority.

Mr. Rippon: We have all known about the existence of the usual channels for many years. They deal with many matters. No doubt the hon. Gentleman now regards himself as part of them. The usual channels may reach provisional agreement amongst themselves which they may find convenient, but they do not bind the House. There are many occasions on which they have come to an agreement but have not received the support of, for example, the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) or, indeed, from time to time, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. They and others have consistently got up in the House and have said that the mere fact that the usual channels have reached an agreement does not mean that the House is bound by it. I am sure the hon. Gentleman accepts that that is so.

Mr. Foot: I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not deliberately seeking to misunderstand the situation. In previous times I have sought to complain but have not had a chance to do so very often because the usual channels had thought this was an appropriate matter for them to settle and there was no provision for the matter to be brought before the House. That would have been the

situation about representation of the House. We are attempting by the Amendment to secure that the matter of representation shall be brought before the House. If the Government reject it, it will still be open to them to try to settle it that way, but we say that the House must retain its final authority to deal with the question.

Mr. Rippon: And I am saying that that is what it does. I am concerned with provisions which need to be put into the Bill in order to comply with our treaty obligations.
I cannot answer for all the activities of the usual channels or for what discussions may take place between them. There has never been any attempt by a British Government to establish the composition of a British delegation by regulation. It has always been recognised that the composition of our delegations to international bodies like the assemblies of the Council of Europe and WEU is a subject for the House itself to decide. No statutory authority is required for the decision and in my submission the use of regulations to implement it would be entirely inappropriate. In my submission, exactly the same considerations apply to the composition of our delegation to the European Parliament.

Mr. Jay: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that the House should decide, why cannot he accept the Amendment?

Mr. Rippon: I think it is bad for the House to try to complicate the issue by making provision in an Act of Parliament for matters that are settled by the House from time to time. After all, it may be that originally hon. Members may be nominated, as in previous cases, through the usual channels, but the composition of the delegation, which is obviously a matter which interests hon. Members on both sides, can be debated in the same way as representation at the Council of Europe or WEU can be debated. It may be that the House has not chosen to debate it and that there are hon. Members, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), who think it would be beneath their status to attend an assembly where they could not feel that they had appropriate powers.
I think that is relevant to the general debate about the powers which the European Parliament might have. These Amendments do not cover the matters raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East or by the right hon. Member for Hills-borough. These are matters for discussion in the light of the Vedel Report and a number of suggestions made by hon. Members on both sides.
It is a process which will take a good many years. I have a great deal of sympathy with my right hon. and learned Friend when he says that he wants to look at these matters of powers. I would like to ensure that he and others of our colleagues might feel it more worth while attending the assembly than at present because its powers have been extended—although the Vedel Report does not propose extending those powers, except in certain clearly defined ways.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: What I was saying was that the evidence of the Vedel Report is that in the European Parliament there is the difficulty of getting people who have a considerable contribution to make in their own Parliament in view of the lack of power and purpose in the European Parliament. If we are to personalise the argument, I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend would agree that he would be the last person who would go on such a vestigial assignment.

Mr. Rippon: Having had the honour, which I much appreciated, of leading the Conservative Party delegation to the Council of Europe over a number of years, I must say that I found it worth while and I am glad to have had that experience. It is wrong to under-value the contributions which these assemblies have made to promoting the European idea and in putting forward policies which national Governments have subsequently adopted.

Mr. David Steel: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there is an important distinction between the way in which the delegates to the Council of Europe and Western European Union are announced and the methods by which Select Committees are appointed? Is

he aware that when Select Committees are appointed the names appear on the Order Paper and they can be and sometimes are debated? These delegations are announced in a Written Answer by the Prime Minister after consultations with the usual channels and there is no opportunity to debate them. Although I understand that he is resisting the Amendment, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give an indication on how the Government intend to proceed on this.

Mr. Rippon: These delegations and their composition can be debated. I am not saying that it is wrong to make provision for this; I am saying that it is wrong to make provision in this Bill. It is likely to take a good many years and there may be a change of view. We may start off in the European Assembly with a balance of Members who have been involved in the Council of Europe or Western European Union. As matters develop, as powers increase, it may be that there will be a change. There undoubtedly will be a discussion about the balance. All I am saying is that this is a prerogative which is already in the hands of the House and it is unnecessary for it to be included in the law.
If the House wishes to change the manner in which its representatives are chosen for the European Assembly or any other international assembly it can do so but these matters have never been prescribed in Statute and for good reason. It is not merely that it is unnecessary to prescribe these matters in a Statute but it would be restrictive to do so.

Mr. Michael English: I am beginning to wonder whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman understands his own Bill. The Bill, when it is an Act, makes Community law part of the law of the United Kingdom. One article of the Treaty of Rome says that its representatives must be Members of Parliament, of either House, and they must be appointed in a manner determined by the member State. What presumably has to be done—it may not be laid down by Statute—is to issue a regulation under Clause 2(2) stating the method of appointment. The treaty will be part of the law of the land and if we do not state the method of appointment we will not be appointing our representatives legally because we


will not have stated the legal means being used, as required in the Treaty. If this is the case, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman stop arguing about whether it is statutory? It may not be statutory, but presumably a Statutory Instrument will determine the method.

Mr. Rippon: There is no need for change of our domestic law in this matter. We can continue to proceed by whatever methods we feel appropriate. I assure the hon. Gentleman that our delegation will be seated accordingly.
Suppose that the arrangements which we make in the first instance do not turn out to be satisfactory to a subsequent House of Commons. The arrangements can be altered at any time without the necessity of changing a Statute or a regulation. We have never dealt with these matters by regulation. My assertion is that it is not necessary. As M. Maurice Schumann said the other day, quoting Spinoza, "If something is unnecessary, it is useless."
Therefore, there is no need to change our Bill to do something we already have the power to do without any change in the law. It is much better that we should be able to proceed by way of procedures which could be changed at any time by any House of Commons, the present or subsequent ones; rather than for the matter to be dealt with by substantive legislation.

Mr. Darling: As a former leader of the United Kingdom delegation to the Council of Europe, I found the method of appointment unsatisfactory. Is it not a fact that the member countries of the Six in their own Parliaments have laid down by Statute, as it were, the method of selection or election of their representatives of the European Parliament? Surely we should follow the same example if we go in.

Mr. Rippon: What they have done in defence of their national sovereignties and parliamentary procedures is to proceed in their own way. That is all that we are suggesting in the Bill, that we should continue to proceed in the way we have always proceeded. Those countries did not need to make any provision in the Statutes ratifying or laying the path for ratifying the treaty for a matter of this kind.
I have intervened early in this debate, which has ranged rather widely, as I believe it is the wish of some right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition side that we should leave time for a substantive debate on Clause 2. Although I have some sympathy with what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East said about that, a number of matters which have been raised in this debate go far outside the scope of the Bill and are matters of general interest.
A number of eminent Members have already made various proposals about ways in which we might relieve the burdens of hon. Members who are likely to have to serve both in this House and at the Assembly. The right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart), my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) have all put forward various proposals which will be part of the general debate which will take place some time on the whole question of how we shall ensure in the years ahead that not only do we have a suitably strong and well constituted delegation serving in the Assembly but also that we make our contribution first to the whole question of the development of the powers of the Assembly and then move forward to direct elections.
I submit to the Committee that these are not matters which are appropriate to amendment of the Bill. If the Amendments were accepted they would have the effect of tying the hands of the House of Commons unnecessarily and causing unnecessary procedural difficulties about future changes.

10.45 p.m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that, on the ground that the Members who go to the European Parliament are not directly elected, we, like other Assemblies in Europe, will require to pass a new instrument of election to the European Parliament?

Mr. Rippon: When the question of direct election is formulated we shall have to define what procedure would need to be adopted throughout the Community as a whole. That may be many years ahead. I do not know. Some people


want it quickly, others do not. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no difficulty about that matter.
I am suggesting that the Amendments ought not to be accepted, first because they are unnecessary, and what is unnecessary is useless in this context, and secondly because they are unduly and unnecessarily restrictive.

Mr. English: The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to have made a specious set of remarks. The Treaty of Rome says that Members of Parliaments must be the representatives in the European Assembly and that the member States must determine how those members are appointed. The member State, in any context, cannot possibly be the House of Commons, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to suggest. The member State, in the context of foreign affairs or something of that character, is the Government. Whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman does it by regulation under Clause 2(2), as he could, or by some fiat of the Executive—some private little minute through the Foreign Office or something of thatcharacter—in effect he means that the Government will decide who the representatives will be.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) pointed out that there might be occasions when a Government might, on a purely party basis, wish to appoint all the delegation from their own party because the Assembly had grown in power and matters had come before it which were discussed upon a party basis.
I have put down new Clause 8—Election of United Kingdom members of the European Communities' Assembly—which would provide for the direct election of our Members, which is perfectly permissible under the Treaty of Rome. The Amendment at least makes sure that, however they are appointed, their appointment is decided by the House of Commons, but the effect of the Bill and the Treaty of Rome is that such appointment is ultimately decided by the Government.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would go through the usual channels. There is no guarantee that a future Government will do that, but there would be a guarantee if the Amend-

ment were accepted. [Interruption.] It is pointed out to me that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not say that. However, assuming that the present Government would proceed through the usual channels, there is no guarantee that if they appointed in the way that we appoint a Select Committee a future Government would do so. I understand that has never been customary concerning these delegations. They are simply appointed by the Government. That is the implication of the statement in the Treaty of Rome taken with the Bill. Unless there were something in the Bill to cover this matter, there would be no guarantee that we should have the slightest control over the appointment of Members to the European Assembly. That is the difference between us. We need the Amendment to ensure that the House of Commons always retains control over that appointment.

Captain Walter Elliot: I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr, Michael Foot) on the importance of this matter, and I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that the appointment of representatives to the European Assembly, however it is done and however many there are, will become even more important as the Assembly gets increased power.
There is, however, considerable confusion of thought. The hon. Members for Ebbw Vale and for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) argued that the House of Commons should retain control of the appointment of representatives, but the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hills-borough (Mr. Darling) said that the Labour representatives would be selected by the Labour Party. I imagine they would be, but is he suggesting that that should be written into the Bill?
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale spoke of the procedure in the Italian and French Parliaments, and no doubt we shall evolve our own procedure as my right hon. and learned Friend said. I hope the Government will give a good deal of thought to this matter, which will become increasingly important, but I cannot see how we can write it into the Bill.

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: I intervene briefly to


say that important points of principle are involved here. There is a fear that the executive and the bureaucracy of the EEC have tremendous powers which will not easily be checked by the member Parliaments of the EEC. For that reason there is a strong case for making sure that the European Assembly will have greater powers of checks and balances than it has now. One of the advantages of going into the Community at this stage—although I am not in favour of the Bill as a whole—is that we shall be able to take part in the current discussions aimed at strengthening the power of the parliamentarians vis-à-vis the EEC.
The representatives of the United Kingdom on the European Assembly will not be effective in fighting to strengthen the power of the legislature vis-à-vis the executive unless the people who select them are members of the legislature who are not themselves part of the usual channels or of the Government but are the directly elected representatives of the people.
If my memory serves me correctly, on a certain Wednesday morning four or five years ago I was asked to be a delegate to Western European Union. By Friday it had been slipped quietly on the Order Paper when everyone had gone away, and on Monday I took a plane to Paris and attended the Assembly. The House of Commons did not debate whether I was a fit and proper person to attend the Assembly. The decision was technically taken by the Prime Minister, through the usual channels.
The Amendment seeks to clarify a little the procedures by which people are selected to go to these assemblies. I think I was sent to the Council of Europe as one of the potential new Europeans. At that time I was a supporter of entry into the Community but after three years' active membership of that Community I became, even before the Labour Government went out of office, one of those who grew increasingly sceptical about joining. I have an awful suspicion that if my state of mind three years on had been translated to my thinking in those days, I might not have gone through the usual channels to that assembly in the first place.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will my hon. Friend assure the Committee that he has never been back since and, since he has become anti-European, that he will never go again?

Mr. Rhodes: I was in the EEC headquarters last week, so that is not strictly true. The fact that one becomes sceptical about the Community does not mean that one should not continue to learn about it. I start from the assumption that we shall join the Community, because there is no point in our discussing this matter unless we are to be part of the Assembly.
I believe there should be no representatives in the Assembly from the other place. What is vital is to have people there who are representatives of the people and not people from an unelected second Chamber.
I accept from the Chancellor of the Duchy that there is a degree of flexibility in the present arrangements and that each member country has its own different system of representation in the European Parliament. The Amendment seeks to define more precisely how our members should be represented. My only regret about the Amendment is that it does not appear to be tight enough to make sure that it will be debated among the different parliamentary parties.
I have examined my diaries for the three years I served on the Council of Europe and find that in one year I was absent from the Chamber for almost 100 parliamentary days. I was in the precise position in which many hon. Members may find themselves when we join the European Parliament. Although this does not mean that we need to neglect our constituency duties, because one can get away at weekends, it must be said that it seriously hinders one's ability to represent one's constituency interests inside the Chamber.
During my two or three years in the Council of Europe I found myself becoming increasingly detached from what was going on. This is a fact. I was commuting by air between Newcastle and Europe continuously, and during one year I was in Europe every alternate week serving on one committee or another, and I was chairman of some. It is quite true that one loses the feel of this place.
This is a serious problem which needs to be given greater discussion before a final decision is reached. I believe something will have to be done to sort out this complex question of how a person can effectively represent his party and his country's interest in a European assembly which takes up probably half a year's parliamentary sitting and also can undertake his constituency work and effectively represent his constituency in the House of Commons.
It is important that all this representation should not be done through the usual channels. It is vitally important that when delegations are appointed to these assemblies they should include European sceptics as well as European fanatics. It will be vital for the House to have on those delegations a number of people who can put to the European Parliament, as I wish to do, problems of regional development.
Although this Amendment does not go far enough, I believe that it seeks to clarify the point and to emphasise the difficulties. I hope that the Committee will support it.

Mr. David Steel: This has been a very unsatisfactory debate on the future of our representation in the European Parliament. If nothing else has come out of it, I hope that the Committee will accept the need to debate this subject after we have disposed of the Bill. The Chancellor of the Duchy said that this was not the appropriate occasion on which to debate these matters and that it was not appropriate to have them in the Bill. While I have some sympathy with that viewpoint, I thought that the Amendment would be used as a peg on which to hang a constructive debate in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman would tell us what was in the Government's mind about our representation.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not quite right to say that this House could debate our existing dele gations to the Council of Europe—

It being Eleven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to the Order of 2nd May.

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — NEW PALACE YARD (UNDERGROUND CAR PARK)

Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [9th June],
That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in their Fourth Report.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Question again proposed.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: When we debated this matter for a short time on Friday, my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) made some comments on the Select Committee's Report. I shall not pursue any of them, other than to remind hon. Members that my hon. Friend pointed out that there was a possible alternative site for the proposed car park; namely, under Parliament Square. I hope that the Under-secretary intends to deal with the point.
I understand that the Under-Secretary is not necessarily responsible personally for the report. It is a report of a Select Committee of this House. It is not a matter of party controversy. But it could be said to be a matter of internal bureaucracy. While the Committee presents us with reports which we may discuss, it has a great deal of influence and power with regard to the comfort and discomfort of this place.
I want first to draw attention to the procedure surrounding the production of this report, and possibly to one or two of the difficulties which some of us are experiencing. Yesterday afternoon the Leader of the House, discussing whether this matter should be taken now or whether it should have been dealt with in the early hours of this morning, said in his expansive way that this was a matter about which the House had already agreed in principle, and that the recommendation contained in the Sixth Report of 1970–71 had been accepted by the House on 30th July of last year. That is so. However, that report was ordered to be printed on 8th June. So some time had elapsed.
While the right hon. Gentleman was correct in what he said, I think that it is right to draw attention to some of the surrounding circumstances. On 22nd July of last year, a week before this item of business was taken, the then


Leader of the House listed the following items of business for Friday, 30th July:
Remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill. Consideration of Amendments to Bills which may be received from another place. Motions relating to Codes of Recommendations and the Welfare of Livestock, Farm Capital Grant (Variation) Schemes, the Price Stability of Imported Products (Poultry Meat) Order and the Housing Subsidies (Representative Rates of Interest) Order, and the Medicines (Retail Pharmacists) Order."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1971; Vol. 821, c. 1682.]
Any hon. Gentleman with an interest in these matters would have made a note in his diary to attend. Anyone interested in the matter of the car park would have noted that it was not down for debate and would have made no arrangements to attend. In fact, it was taken "on the nod" at 11 o'clock on Friday, 30th July, without objection.
That is not surprising. The 13th volume of the Notices of Motions, 1970–71, shows that the item did not appear on the list of remaining business for the previous day, Thursday, 29th July. It was not until the Order Paper was available at about 8 or 9 o'clock on the Friday morning that we saw this item had been put down and that the Leader of the House was going to move "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Report ".
That was all the notice that any interested hon. Member could have had, and he would have had to shout "Object" at the right time. I am not questioning that procedure. We all know that business has to come on the Order Paper in a hurry. It is a good thing that the House can move fast when required. We are not perhaps so slow as some of the detractors of this House make out. What I question is the propriety of this business, first of all, not being notified by the Leader of the House 10 days beforehand, as is provided—after all, it was printed on 8th June, so there was plenty of time—and, second, of its not being put on the Order Paper until the very morning—Friday at that—when it was to be debated.
We have just been discussing the powers of the House, and it is worth pointing out that it is no good the Minister saying that the House agreed this matter when the circumstances were as I have described. On the merits of the matter, I will not necessarily oppose it,

because we have been placed in an impossible position by the procedures adopted. The Sixth Report is two pages long, containing an artist's impression of this car park, no diagram and very little technical detail.
It was not until the following 23rd December that the planning authority for the area, the GLC, was apprised of this proposal. As traffic authority for the area, it is responsible for the circulation of traffic, particularly parking control in London and the degree to which public and other buildings should have parking accommodation.
Of course I would not say that the GLC should have powers over this House. I declare an interest, as a Co-operative member of the committee concerned. But it shows discourtesy on the part of those responsible that it was many months before the GLC was officially informed that it was the intention of the House to build this car park.
Things have improved a little. I believe that the notorious Circular 100 gave the GLC virtually no powers in this respect. Since then we have had Circular No. 80, which gives the GLC the right to comment. We are told that this House is the bastion of democracy. It was most unfortunate that its servants should wait that time before informing the planning authority. Although the planning authority did not discuss the matter until after Christmas one of the things it mentioned, as was mentioned earlier, was that it was suggested that there were alternative sites.
The second point about this car park is its location relative to the square and the amount of cars in it. The GLC made no comment on the quantity of cars concerned and the difficulty of egress from and exit into the square. But has the Select Committee thought out the complications of getting 500 cars out of that car park into Parliament Square at 10 p.m. after a three-line whip plus the existing numbers of taxis which wish to use this circular system? Traffic engineers have not been given the opportunity to comment on this point. I am sure that the police will do their stuff, but can we get 500 cars up the ramp in the time available without hon. Members having an intolerable waiting time with engines running and so on?
The next question relates to cost. In the Fourth Report of this Session—we have to refer to this—we still have not got a diagram of this car park and we are told that it will now cost slightly under £2 million. But from page 3 onwards we are not told of the number of cars. We have to turn right to the back of the Report, to Annex 1. "Annex" is an ominous word; apparently we are going European already and not using the word "Appendix". Annex 1 says that the new car park will be for 500 cars. But 220 are there at present. I should have thought that with a little more rearrangement, probably using the space paved over to take a few more cars, we could probably accommodate 250. So all we are doing is increasing the number from 250 to 500—producing a net gain of 250. For that, the public—not we Members—will pay slightly under £2 million, which is about £7,000 to £8,000 per car place. That total will include the cost of construction, ventilation, lifts, or whatever is installed, and no doubt the cost of someone to look after the machinery and the parking. That is slightly expensive for what we are to get.
The GLC has another interest in this matter in the question of car parking facilities in general in central London. This House does not sit for many weeks in the summer when there are many public spectacles and when many wish to visit this part of Westminster. This matter was raised at a committee meeting of the GLC. A suggestion was made of using Victoria Tower Gardens as an alternative. There has been correspondence between the GLC and the Government on this matter. I have a copy of a letter from the Department of the Environment explaining why Victoria Tower Gardens will not do. It strikes me as being rather lame in its reasons. It is dated 19th May, 1972, and it states:
With regard to the suggestion that we consider the space below Victoria Tower Gardens as an alternative location there are a number of objections, for example, distance from the House of Commons, the existing boiler house which at present occupies space, the North/South tunnel proposals and the serious problem of coping with ramped entrances within a relatively small garden area which has a high amenity value.
I take those points one by one. A letter of this importance should not say

"for example". We should be given the reasons. Regarding the distance from the House, firstly, it may not be Members of the House of Commons who would use the bigger area, which would cost less, in Victoria Tower Gardens. We could, perhaps, put the other place's car park there and make everyone a little nearer here. There are Officers of this House who do not have to attend Divisions who would use that and, therefore, Old Palace Yard may be available for this House. So distance from the House is not necessarily a factor.
The existing boiler house is not in the gardens. It is next door to the Lord Chancellor's residence. The north/south tunnel has no relevance. Whether it is a tunnel or water outside, the car park would not have any great relevance. The ramped entrances would take only a small portion of the garden area which would remain.
I hope when we have a reply, therefore, that we can be told why this was not considered in greater detail. In the absence of a convincing explanation of why this space is not suitable, we must conclude that it was not considered as carefully as it should have been. No doubt Victoria Tower Gardens would provide a much bigger space and would provide accommodation for visitors'cars—perhaps for the Westminster City Council—when the House is not sitting, including every weekend and not just in the summer. It would be a much more economical use of public money.
Therefore, I object to the proposal. I cannot vote against it because obviously time is against me. We have been tricked up to a point, first on the procedure. I do not think there was any need for the House to be given two hours' notice of a debate on the Motion when it has been published for a month. The second respect in which we were tricked concerned the lack of time given to the local authority which is responsible for traffic and transport in London. Are the official reasons which have been given to the authority—and presumably to this House, because we have heard no other reason—good enough and was the matter given adequate consideration?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), I shall courteously inform the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton)


that as he was not here at the beginning he has lost his right to speak again. Mr. Cooke—

Mr. Robert Cooke: rose—

Mr. Marcus Lipton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had not concluded what I had to say when the debate was adjourned on Friday last and I therefore consider that I am entitled to conclude the speech I began with.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the hon. Member's feelings, but I must ask him to accept from me that he cannot speak again. I would like him to conclude his remarks, but I cannot allow him to do so. The rules of the House expressly lay down that if an hon. Member is not here to continue his speech when he is called, as I called the hon. Member, he cannot continue his speech. Unfortunately, I shall have to ask the hon. Member not to persist in attempting to do so because that would be out of order. Mr. Cooke—

Mr. Robert Cooke: rose—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: If, as I hope, my hon. Friend asked leave of the House to speak again, he could do so, could he not, Mr. Deputy Speaker, subject to no hon. Member objecting? I hope that no hon. Member will object and that if you accept what I have said you will allow my hon. Friend to speak—but perhaps after I have caught your eye.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) is an expert in the procedure of the House and he is perfectly right. For the moment I am calling Mr. Cooke.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am happy that we have begun on such a good-humoured note.
The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) expressed some irritation, but with a little more time perhaps my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House could have explained the position to him on the last occasion this matter was raised. No doubt the House, with matters of international importance to discuss, is reluctant to give a great deal of time to a domestic matter of this sort. I hope

the reply from my right hon. Friend will do something to soothe the hon. Member's irritated feelings.
I have served on the Services Committee for a short time now and on its predecessors for a longer period, and I would hope to be able to put the matter into perspective. I have one or two questions for my right hon. Friend on which it might be helpful to have answers at the outset. The hon. Member for Acton has mentioned a figure for the cost of the scheme. It would be helpful to have the latest estimate of the cost. I believe that since the estimate that the hon. Member quoted was published various factors have come into play which have slightly increased the figure. If my right hon. Friend is in a position to give that figure, perhaps he would care to do so now. Although it is not way out compared with what the hon. Gentleman says, there is the possibility that it is more than he indicated.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): The latest estimates, as is so often the case in these matters, do show some degree of escalation. In fact, the latest cost is about £2·2 million for the car park, which is about 5 per cent, more than the Department was expecting. The rest of the increase is mainly due to leaving the steel liners in the shafts originally sunk for making the partition wall.

Mr. Cooke: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He might also like to confirm that our experts tell us there is no danger to the clock tower or any other part of the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Carr: I can indeed do that. It is one of the things I should have said on Friday if there had been more time. It is an aspect which was gone into very carefully by the Services Committee. We are laymen and must take technical advice, and the technical advice was to that effect.

Mr. Cooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
Perhaps the House will try to look at the scheme in a wider context. I suppose there is no hon. Member who would not wish to improve the environment of Parliament Square, it being the very centre of the Commonwealth. There is


a great deal of argument about what buildings should be erected in this part of London. I must not stray into that matter, because the House will want to debate it at great length. No one will disagree that Parliament Square should be improved. Perhaps we might even have a greater Parliament Square, with the removal of all the excrescences, other than the Middlesex Guildhall, which is held in great affection. But the Chartered Surveyors and the architectural junk on that side of Great George Street might go, and we might have a much improved open space—I would hope an open space pedestrian precinct in due course. No one would argue against the proposition that all the through traffic through Parliament Square should be removed eventually. Perhaps the House can do something, with the help of the Greater London Council and the Westminster City Council, to see that that comes about. Having done that, how can we get rid of the service traffic without various underground routes?
The underground car park, which some might think is suggested just for the benefit of Members, is the key to the whole problem. If hon. Members study the report they will see that it has immense possibilities in that direction. The whole of New Palace Yard could be vastly improved. Instead of being cluttered with cars of all shapes, sizes and colours, as it is now, it could be a great addition to the open space in the area. During recesses it could be enjoyed by the public, and I would hope that even when the House was sitting it could be enjoyed by a much wider circle than the few harassed policemen and trapped Members who try to wend their way through the cars.
In the wider context, if we had an underground car park in New Palace Yard it could be linked with other underground areas for vehicle movement or parking. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Victoria Gardens. There could be a place underground for cars there. Distinguished engineers have put forward a scheme for an underground parking area on the other side of Parliament Square, away from New Palace Yard, over towards the Middlesex Guildhall. Underground access from various places—Victoria Street, the park, Whitehall, the

Embankment—could be linked with underground areas. Instead of the charming picture of the corporation dustcart wending its way through the present channels through the Palace of Westminster and into the sunlight it would go underground, which would be very much better.
The present proposal should be viewed in that context. The parking spaces to be provided will not necessarily be a great convenience for hon. Members. I realise that discipline will have to be exercised. Getting into and out of the underground car park will not be as easy for hon. Members as the present slap-happy method of driving one's car into New Palace Yard, abandoning it there and hoping that a friendly policeman will deal with it.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: Ditching it.

Mr. Cooke: Ditching it, as the President of the House of Commons Motoring Club says.

Sir G. Nabarro: Chairman.

Mr. Cooke: At least Nab 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are safe from vicious attack in New Palace Yard.
It is not just a question of Members' cars. The impact on all the staff who work in the Palace of Westminster—and there are more of them than there are of us—will be considerable. As someone who has hopes that in his lifetime Parliament Square will be cleared of traffic and will become a pedestrian precinct, which would be the finest thing in the Commonwealth, I support this scheme, even though it might cost £2 million. It could be part of much greater things, and I hope that the House will support it.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) will have the opportunity of speaking and that he will be able to continue the explanation which he began last Friday, which was drawn to a hurried conclusion. He is to be congratulated on initiating this debate because it is important. The only trouble is that the Government, as always, slapped the Motion on the Order


Paper as the last Order on Friday, but, because of the objection of my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) and one or two others of us who were present, it has been brought forward again.
The Chairman of the House of Commons Motoring Club, the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)—and I am pleased that he had a very happy day yesterday—will recollect that he and I had the opportunity of appearing before the Services Committee. It would have been a privilege had I been allowed to remain a member of it. I was on it for only six months, and I was taken off it because I was not one of the "yes" men. However, that is digressing. I had the opportunity, together with the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, of going before the Committee and putting forward the view, which is borne out by the professional report referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton, that the car park should go under Parliament Square.
One of the points I made to the Committee was that it would be better from all points of view if the car park went under Parliament Square and there would be three or four ingress and egress areas without interfering with the free flow of traffic. But the Committee said immediately, without being informed of the detail of our suggestion, that it was not possible or practicable. We were not then advised or qualified to argue. We had to accept this report, and that is why I should like my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton to develop the point he touched on briefly, because he says he has a consultants' report which says that this is a practical proposition which in engineering terms is feasible.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I know the hon. Member has taken this seriously, and I have heard of this proposal, and no one would quarrel with the technical feasibility of an underground car park in Parliament Square, at the other side from the underground railway. That would be a useful addition to what is now proposed. But, even if the car park were built, in order to provide a link with this building it would have to be considerably deeper than the underground railway. One might very well proceed with the present scheme and then with that

scheme later, but that would not solve the immediate problem.

Mr. Lewis: I would not quarrel with the hon. Member, because I have not the technical knowledge, but my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton on Friday had a report and I hope he still has it with him. If not, surely he will be able to give us some information on it? I will leave that to him to develop.
The other point I want to deal with, which is mentioned in the report, is the temporary arrangement for parking hon. Members' cars. It is inadequate. Again, when I attended the Committee with the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South I suggested that I could not see why Members of Parliament could not temporarily park cars in old Scotland Yard. Only today I went again to old Scotland Yard and the annexe thereto and saw literally hundreds—certainly dozens—of private cars parked there. I cannot see why Members of Parliament should not be allowed to park there during the temporary period. At the moment, it is used by the Metropolitan Police, but they have an underground car park at New Scotland Yard.
There is also Cannon Row, the cul-de-sac or one-way street, where at present there are parking bays where members of the public park by putting money in the meters. Strangely enough, members of the police force, who are illegally doing this every day of the week, are parking private cars on the parts marked "For solo motor cycles only" and on parts where there are yellow bands, where they are not allowed. If hon. Members will look they will see that stuck in the windscreens of the cars there are plain Metropolitan Police memos. I have seen police in uniform and traffic wardens looking and walking by. When they see the police memo in the windows of private cars they take no notice. I have reported this to Scotland Yard, to the Commissioner of Police. I have reported it to the police at Cannon Row, but, of course, no action is taken.
Members of Parliament are not above the law, nor should the police be above it. The police have their private cars. I know they are police cars because I found three of them, unlicensed, with police uniforms and helmets in the back. Only today I saw one of them—a brand


new sports car, numbered JW1, not NAB1—with a police memo inside the windscreen. It was allegedly broken down—a brand new car. I do not object to the police being there. All I am saying is that if the police can—I do not know whether they can—park their private cars, without licences, on a yellow band road, in places marked out for solo motor cycles only and in places where no parking is allowed, Members of Parliament should have the same rights, no more, no less.

Mr. John Roper: indicated dissent.

Mr. Lewis: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is illegal for Members of Parliament, but the police, whose job is to enforce the law, should enforce it against themselves. If they do not do it and if a Member of Parliament asks them to do it, the Commissioner of Police should see that it is done.
The situation could be helped if the police suggested to themselves that they shift their cars out of old Scotland Yard into New Scotland Yard, because they would then be on the premises of their building.

Mr. R. Carr: Will the hon. Member help the House by telling us how many cars he thinks might be parked in the area he is talking about?

Mr. Lewis: I have not worked it out, but only today I saw, in the small area of what I term the gateway entrance to old Scotland Yard from the Thames Embankment, about 20 cars. When I looked inside old Scotland Yard itself I saw about 40 or 50 cars—I did not count them—and in the Cannon Row area I saw another 10 or 15. That would probably add up to about 100, which might well be a useful total.
Hence I suggest that these are points which the Committee could have considered but did not consider because it might have been inconvenient to the police at old Scotland Yard. I agree that it might have been inconvenient, but it might have been more convenient for Members of the House and ultimately more convenient for the police had they accepted the suggestion.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: This is a rather awkward controversy, not least because I understand that we are hard up against time. If I read the programme aright, we are within a matter of days of when the programme of works which is being discussed is due to begin. That is a very unfortunate atmosphere in which to discuss what I think is rather more than a domestic matter for Members of the House.
I want to strike a slight cautionary note on my reading of the two reports, the one of last year and the one of this year, of the Services Committee. It is easy to be critical of Committees which report in the service of the House. I stress at once that I think the Committee was entirely within its rights and properly fulfilling its duty in reporting as it did in both reports on the project under consideration. Within the context of what the Committee was asked to do, what it reported to us seemed to me to be entirely justified.
The question that arises is whether we have a duty to consider the matter in a rather wider context than that in which the Select Committee was required to view the matter. My doubt arises in terms of the proper scale of what we are discussing.
The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) used figures which were pretty near the mark. In terms of last year's estimate we are talking about a figure of about £2 million and an increased capacity of not 250 but 200 cars, and 500 cars when the project is completed. Let us take the difference of 300 cars and assume that the figure is not £7,000 a car but £6,000.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am sure that my right hon. Friend does not wish to mislead the House. The present accommodation within the Palace of Westminster provides for 355 cars; the increased capacity is of the order of 550.

Mr. Deedes: We are not talking about quite the same thing. I am talking about the number of car places in New Palace Yard, which provides overall for 200 cars—or 220 if carefully parked. We are discussing the matter in a wider context and within a range of what is publicly acceptable.
We have to consider the duty of a Select Committee to do this work for us and the judgment of this House on a matter of this kind. What is required of us is not the approval or disapproval of a Select Committee report, but judgment of the overall effects. We are not discussing an entirely domestic matter. We have two tasks. One is to consider our own needs. The second and greater task is to consider our needs in relation to other people's needs.
I am not concerned about the physical risks which have been alleged by the GLC in terms of Big Ben or anything else. I am not deeply concerned about the disruption that this operation will undoubtedly cause.

Mr. Spearing: I should make it clear that the GLC made no such aspersion; I think that aspect was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton). The GLC was concerned with the very point made by the right hon. Gentleman, particularly the capacity for other public use when the House is not sitting and the situation involving a five-storey structure near the river, which has its difficulties.

Mr. Deedes: Wherever the observation came from, there certainly has been mention of possible risks to the structure. I am saying that I am not concerned with that aspect since it is not relevant to my argument. Certainly the disruption—which will be extensive and will, we are told, last 18 months—will not add to the tourist attractions in Westminster.
I have never been in favour of doing things here on the cheap. It should be explained to the public that it is not always possible to relate our special needs in this place to other needs. Indeed, we must distinguish between the needs of this place, which works in a peculiar way, and the needs of a working establishment. There remains a duty to keep the matter in perspective.
I wish to ask three questions. Let us assume that this will cost around £6,000 per car. First: will it add to the efficient conduct of our business? I take leave to doubt that. I have a vision of cars arriving at this proposed car park on a busy evening. Even allowing a quarter of an hour for this operation, my vision of a three-line Whip with a lot of cars arriving at a quarter to ten does

not afford me very ample reassurance. I will leave it at that. The second question is: will it improve the environment of the precincts? This again I take leave to doubt. I do not see where we improve the open space facility. I do not see what space now cluttered by cars will be free by the creation of this park.
If we take the realities of the situation, we employ within the Palace of Westminster 2,000 people, in addition to ourselves. That is a large working force, much of it quite properly running its own cars. If it does not now it will do so in five, six or more years' time. This is absolutely proper, but it must be taken into account if we are talking about an underground car park which is to contain 500 cars. We ought to look ahead. A project costing £2½ million should look into the future. Let us take a working force of 2,000, and ourselves, making 2,500 people and think of the motor cars in relation to that working force and ask what contribution a car park of five storeys taking 500 cars will make. I do no more than put the question. We ought to weigh it before reaching a decision.
The third question is: does this, overall, improve the assets of the Palace? Again I take leave to doubt this. It really makes no case to say that if we do not do this we will have to park cars on the grass in Parliament Square, which again would be most unacceptable for all sorts of reasons. It will not greatly improve the amenities or the assets of the Palace. It will provide a proportion of the car parking space which will be required, but a good deal more will be required than we think now. It will do no more than that.
I ask hon. Members to weigh carefully the future quantities of cars likely to be parked, against the overall parking space provided by this great structure. Does the gain look like being equalised by the outlay and by the temporary disturbance which we will suffer? I am bound to say, in moderate terms, that I do not think that this is a very good example of our capacity to manage affairs. It is in respect of our own affairs, but I do not think that this will be held widely to our credit and that is why I urge hon. Members, in the most temperate terms I can conjure up, to think very carefully before passing this conscientious report by the Select Committee.

11.48 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: rose—

Sir G. Nabarro: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) have the leave of the House to speak again? Mr. Lipton.

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely hon. Members who have not spoken in the debate have precedence over hon. Members who are seeking to address the House for a second time?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Member must await his turn. There is no question that he will not be able to speak. As far as possible the Chair tries to go from one side to the other. It makes for more orderly debate. If the hon. Member for Brixton has the leave of the House, and he obviously has, then he may speak.

Mr. Lipton: I thank the House for granting me this privilege of speaking for a second time in the debate.
I find myself in full agreement with what the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) has said. On Friday last I tried to express my misgivings about the whole project. We started with an original estimate of £1·3 million. Then—I quote from the fourth report—that moves up to slightly under £2 million, and tonight we are told by the Leader of the House that it will be about £2·2 million. I am convinced that if this project goes forward it will be possibly nearer £3 million than £2·2 million. The cost is bound to escalate. When one starts to excavate one never knows what one will find.
There are certain intangible factors with which we shall have to deal. The Leader of the House has said that technical advice has been sought and obtained, and the result is that the structure of the clock tower and the other buildings will not be endangered by the proposed car park. The House is entitled to further details regarding this technical advice, and to know from whom it was obtained. If we are put in possession of further information we shall be in a better position to judge the tests which were carried out which enable the Leader of the House to say that there is no

danger to the existing surrounding structures.
I now come to the matter which was touched upon by the right hon. Member for Ashford. Some Government Departments are playing with the idea of discouraging private cars from coming into central London. We have reasonable means of access by Underground. We have a subway leading from Westminster Underground Station into the Houses of Parliament. We should not do anything to encourage more cars to pour into central London, particularly Westminster, than already do so.
The Government cannot speak with two voices on this matter. The Government cannot, on the one hand, say that private cars must be restricted in access to central London, and, on the other, spend anything up to £3 million to provide car park accommodation for 500 cars, which will be only 280 more cars than can now be accommodated in New Palace Yard.
This venture will not be worth while. We are claiming to ourselves a privilege at the taxpayers' expense of about £7,000 a car, if not more, before we are finished. We are not entitled to ask the taxpayer to spend that sum to enable any hon. Member to park his car under New Palace Yard.
I asked the question about the catalpa trees. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some information about that aspect. I understand that some risk is involved. I hope that my fears about the catalpa trees are not well founded and that they will not suffer any damage as a result of excavations which might take place.
We are taking a gamble. We are digging down storeys below New Palace Yard. It is true that various surveys have been made, but we may be in for some expensive surprises.
I am obliged to the House for allowing me these few minutes after what I said the other day. I hope that we shall seriously consider the implications. I am not criticising the Select Committee; it had a job to do and it did it. However, I criticise the way the Government have handled the matter. The manner in which the Government have put the report of the Select Committee before the House


is open to the severest censure. The Government have put the House in a difficult situation and they must accept responsibility.
For those reasons I hold to the misgivings I expressed the other day, which are shared by a number of hon. Members and which will be shared by the general public when they realise what is going on.

11.55 p.m.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: I object to these proposals because of their inadequacy. We are suggesting that we build a very expensive underground car park for a small proportion of the vehicles which will wish to come to the Palace of Westminster within five years from now. I estimate that the need, five years hence, will be 1,300 vehicles. In fact, we are estimating that we can fulfil our need in the near future by providing for only 500 vehicles.
At present, if there is a three-line Whip on both sides, the number of vehicles trying to get into New Palace Yard is of the order of 380. The number of vehicles I have counted on occasions of a running three-line Whip on both sides is generally slightly less than 400 and probably an average of 380. In the next few years no doubt that figure will grow as we climb to a position where every Member of Parliament brings a car here. Moreover, a fairly considerable number of cars is brought here by Members of the House of Lords. I have estimated the number as being about 200 at a maximum.
Provision will be needed, within five years, for about 2,000 people employed in or around the Palace of Westminster. On occasions a few hundred of them bring cars here. The rules about employees within the Palace of Westminster who are not Members of either House of Parliament leaving their cars here are very sketchy, inadequate and inexact.
I have sometimes inquired who owns the 80 motor cars which stay here all night. This morning at half-past eight there were 78 motor cars here. I walked round and counted them. I understand that Officers of the House have rights equal to Members of the House of Commons in leaving their cars here. An Officer of the House includes a person so lowly as a temporary acting assistant

Librarian. We can therefore gauge that, particularly on Fridays, there is a large number of cars here which are not owned by hon. Members.
Not only is the present provision wholly inadequate to serve the needs of Members of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons, members of the staff and Officers of the House, but the deficiency is likely to grow apace during the next few years.
The Select Committee's Report and the Motion, if it is passed, recommend providing for only 500 cars in the proposed underground car park. Those 500 cars have to come through the same ingress as the present method of approach to New Palace Yard. The maximum number of cars coming into New Palace Yard at present is about 380. We are therefore aggravating what is already a bad ingress and egress position by trying to channel approximately 30 per cent. more motorcars through the present inadequate entry and exit.
Many of us who do not have ministerial cars with chauffeurs provided for us have had the excruciating experience, after a three-line Whip Division, of taking 20 minutes to half an hour trying to get out into Parliament Square. That position will be greatly worsened when we build the underground car park. That is the first point I want to make.
The second point I want to make about this proposition concerns the inadequate consideration which has been given to it by the whole House. It is entirely insufficient to put down a Motion to be passed through on the nod, as was done 12 months ago when the House had only unimportant business and hardly any hon. Members were present. The Motion was then put down last Friday by the Government in the sure knowledge that there would not be anybody here at 4 o'clock on a Friday afternoon.
Before we embark on this scheme I should like to see a full-scale debate in the House, not only on this inadequate proposal but on the long-term implications of what we are doing. When I said, taking a five-year look at it, that facilities would be needed for 1,300 motor cars by 1975–80, nobody in high official places quarrelled with me. The Serjeant at Arms, the House of Lords and the Department of the Environment did not quarrel


with me. With the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), I gave evidence to the Select Committee and quoted and justified the figure of 1,300 and nobody quarrelled with me. Now we are providing for 500, plus Old Palace Yard, perhaps 600 or 700 in all—

Mr. Robert Cooke: My hon. Friend is surely not suggesting that the House should devote a whole day to discussing the parking arrangements for Members and others. He said that he put up a case to the Select Committee for all the places he wants—1,300 or 2,000 I think. The point of my speech was that this must be taken in the wider context that all the other people who will want to park near the Palace of Westminster can be accommodated in due course in other places. A start has to be made somewhere. This proposal is the result of representations he and others made to the Select Committee, but not all they ask for can be done at the present time; this is at least a beginning.

Sir G. Nabarro: My hon. Friend is a member of the Select Committee and can argue the case upstairs. It is not usual when a proposition of this kind is debated in the House for the whole time to be occupied by interventions from members of the Select Committee.
This matter should be looked at in a wider sphere than the parking of Members' cars. I am not suggesting that we should at this moment provide for parking 1,300 Members' cars, but I want to be sure that we do not spend millions of pounds providing an underground car park which by the time the matter is resolved will be wholly inadequate to the needs of Members of this House, Members of the other House, the staff and Officers of the House.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I do not understand how the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) can say that the parking of Members' cars is a minor matter. It is a major environmental question which concerns one of the most important areas of the capital. If we cannot, after due consideration, make a decision which will stand for many decades I do not know what the House of Commons is about.

Sir G. Nabarro: What I mean by "wider sphere" is dealing with traffic problems in and around Parliament Square at the same time as we deal with the parking of Members' cars.
Even if we build the car park, we leave wholly unresolved the question of the increasing vehicular traffic from Whitehall through to Millbank, to and from the Palace of Westminster and Victoria Street, to and from George Street and St. James's Park. Not one of these acute traffic problems is tackled by virtue of voting through the underground car park. If we have to have the car park in its present form, I hope that facilities will be provided for Members in addition to parking facilities. I know of no employer anywhere who is as bad as the employer of Members of Parliament; nor do I know of facilities as bad as those in the place we are called on to work.
Why are there no petrol pumps provided for Members? Why do they have to drive a couple of miles away in order to fill up their cars with petrol? Why should they not have facilities for washing their cars without having to go miles away for the purpose? If we are building a five-storey car park under the Palace of Westminster, there should be facilities not only for filling up with petrol but for servicing and washing cars in addition to the parking. I regard this as a wholly reasonable suggestion.
In the past when these matters have been raised with the authorities of the House during the whole of the last 20 to 25 years, we have always been told that the fire risk is too great to have a petrol pump, that if a fire resulted from a petrol pump it could have disastrous results. I find no difficulty elsewhere among major centres of employment in providing petrol facilities for the cars of employees and visitors. I hope therefore that my right hon. Friend will not regard this departure of an underground car park only as a means of accommodating cars but that it will provide services as well.
We are all going to suffer the most acute discomfort and dislocation during the period of building this car park. It will be seen from the schedule at the back of the report that during a certain period later this year there will be no facilities


at all for parking cars within the precincts, and that next year, after 1st January, there will be facilities for only 100 cars out of the 400 that are wanted. All of us will have to chase to and from Broad Sanctuary or, as I suggested, Horse Guards—although that has been ruled out—causing very great inconvenience.
In that period, my right hon. Friend might arrange two or three things for the convenience of hon. Members. The first is that Officers of the House and members of the staff should park their cars in Broad Sanctuary, because they are not concerned with rushing in and out for Divisions. If anyone has to be incommoded by parking cars some distance from the House, it would be healthy for Officers of the House and members of the staff to park their cars over there first and leave all the small amount of parking facilities that are available here for the use of Members.
The second point is that Members who bring their cars here on Monday morning from some distance and leave them parked in New Palace Yard until Friday evening ought to be prevented from doing so and should take their cars away and park them—compulsorily park them—on Broad Sanctuary or elsewhere outside the precincts, thus leaving the small amount of parking space available within the precincts for Members who are in and out on Divisions.
I do not like these proposals at all. I hoped that this evening the Motion might be negatived, although I fear that it will not be and that it will be passed through in a very thin House without due consideration by the whole of the House. When the time comes later on this year and next year, I hope I shall not receive in the House of Commons Motor Club huge numbers of complaints that we have done nothing about car parking in the period of reconstruction. We get a host of complaints today about parking facilities in New Palace Yard, and when they are nearly extinguished, as they are going to be during the next few months, I fear that the volume of complaints will be immeasurably greater. For myself, I shall direct the lot to the Leader of the House.

12.10 a.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I make only two brief points in what is a thinly-attended House. The first is that I do not think that we can confine ourselves to the report of the Select Committee. I am the last person to disagree with a Committee which has, in accordance with its terms of reference, produced a scheme for car parking. However, we have to consider a very large number of people in this House, not only Members, but servants of the House who have to use their cars to come here—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Why?

Dr. Glyn: Because the hours that this House compels its staff to work mean that frequently there is no other method of getting home. Therefore, we have to look very much further into the provision of car parking facilities.
I do not quarrel with the Committee's report, but I emphasise that we have to consider this matter in a wider context. First, we must consider it from the environmental point of view. But, secondly, I hope that we shall consider it as merely the first stage, and that we shall also investigate the possibility of using what is a very nice site—the garden adjacent to Victoria Tower. It is an extremely pleasant garden which is used and enjoyed by the public. But, properly planned, it could be used for an underground car park, leaving the garden relatively undisturbed, and even for a multi-storey car park while still preserving the amenities of the locality—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may say what they like, but how else are we to find additional parking space after we have constructed this underground car park?
The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) suggests Parliament Square. Some hon. Members have suggested other sites. In any event, I ask my right hon. Friend to consider regarding the Committee's proposal as the first stage in providing sufficient accommodation for the cars of Members and of the staff of this House with two considerations in mind: not spoiling the amenities of this area, and making it clear at the same time that we have to provide proper access and egress not only for Members of Parliament and members of the staff but for members of the public as well.
With those two provisos, I am happy to accept the Committee's recommendation.

12.14 a.m.

The Lord President and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): For the benefit of one or two hon. Members, I must make clear at the outset that I speak on this matter on behalf of the Services Committee of the House of Commons and not on behalf of the Government. It is one of the duties and privileges of the Leader of the House to preside over the Committee, and that I do. It is on the Committee's behalf and not that of the Government that I speak.
I have been Leader of the House and Chairman of the Services Committee for a few weeks only. Therefore I have not been involved in this matter from the beginning, and there may be points about it of which I am not aware and which I do not understand to the full. However, in the few weeks that I have chaired the Committee I have seen the obvious care and detail with which the Committee, which is representative of all parties, has gone into this matter on behalf of the House.
The members of the Committee would be the first to admit that they are not perfect, all-wise or all-seeing. We are no better and, I hope, no worse than other hon. Members. However, I assure hon. Members that we did not make our recommendations lightly; nor do we believe that they are perfect. We simply believe, in the interests of the House, that among a lot of difficult choices and imperfect solutions this is the best one that we can put forward at the moment. That is why, on behalf of the Committee, I advise the House to agree with this report.
The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) mentioned the planning authorities. I do not want to get involved in arguments about Circular 100 or Circular 80—I would not be very expert at it if I did—but in fairness to the Services Committee it should be reported that proposals were submitted to the planning authorities viaWestminster City Council as long ago as 20th December, 1971. It is not the fault of the Services Committee if the planning authorities took over five months to reply with some

comments. It may be a difficult process, but hon. Members should feel that their Services Committee tried to do its best in this matter. It would not be right to suggest that it was regardless about it.
The hon. Member also mentioned Victoria Tower Gardens as an alternative site. He rather easily dismissed some of the objections to it. This matter was considered before I was Chairman of the Committee, but I have looked into what the considerations were here. I believe that the considerations against Victoria Tower Gardens were pretty substantial.
The distance of the gardens from the Chamber and the new parliamentary building is a substantial disadvantage. Hon. Members are concerned about the distance from this Chamber of Broad Sanctuary as a temporary parking place. I have not stepped it out, but I suspect that Victoria Tower Gardens is not all that much nearer. If hon. Members object to Broad Sanctuary as a temporary parking place, how much more would they object to Victoria Tower Gardens as a permanent one?
We were also, of course, concerned with the need to safeguard this small public garden, which is of high amenity value. It may be true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Dr. Glyn) put it, that this could be done and the gardens put right again. Perhaps, but it would mess it up for a considerable time. But perhaps the clinching argument was the difficulty, because of other traffic, of siting the access ramps in the limited space.
The Committee did not dismiss this alternative site at all lightly. Of course our judgment of the various factors may be questioned but I assure the House that, after going into it, we felt that on balance it was not a very satisfactory proposition—certainly not as satisfactory as the one we propose in the report.
I cannot help feeling—although I do not complain of this—that in this, as in so many other matters, it is very easy for those who do not have the responsibility to make positive recommendations to criticise the recommendations that others make on their behalf. The only other positive alternative canvassed is the one mentioned, by the hon. Members for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) and for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). That


was the possibility of excavating a new car park under Parliament Square. Again, the Services Committee at least considered this—without, it is true, the benefit of the latest engineer's report. It seemed to us to be a more technically complicated site because of the difficulties presented by the Underground railway which runs across there. I am not saying that that would be insuperable, but we would have had to go much deeper.
There were other questions of the disturbance caused to central London, which would have been even greater while it was going on. It may be worth while if it is of greater benefit in the end, but if people bother about the disturbance caused to the environment by digging in New Palace Yard they do not have to think very hard to realise the difficulties and the disturbance to the environment by digging in Parliament Square. So there were serious difficulties.
As the scheme which has been put forward by the engineers has been referred to, it should be made clear to the House that the first official contact of the consulting engineers with the Department of the Environment about their proposal came in a letter dated as recently as 24th May. It is difficult when one gets new proposals put forward. On the one hand, one does not want to cast any aside if they are at all serious; but, on the other hand, if every time we get a bright new proposal from some bright new engineers we put aside all the work that has been done and start again, I suspect that it will be a very long time before we make any improvement in the facilities for the House of Commons in this respect.
I am in no position to question the costs put forward by the engineers because I confess to the House that in the few weeks available it has not been possible to carry out a full technical appraisal of their proposals. But on the advice we have, it is our impression that in view of the difficulties presented by the Underground railway running across Parliament Square and the deeper excavation that would be required—and, as far as we know, no proper soil testing has been done by the engineers putting forward this proposal—the price they put on their proposal is rather speculative.

If it were properly investigated and costed, we should be very surprised if it were all that much cheaper. On purely common sense, prima faciegrounds, it is difficult to believe that this could be any cheaper, and one might at least fear that it could be more expensive.
That leads me to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke). We should think about the relation of this car park to further possible developments. As my hon. Friend indicated, there is the possibility of the linkage of what we are proposing to the House now—underneath New Palace Yard—with other underground car parks, for example, under Parliament Square, and linking it with other underground underpasses and so on as part, over the years, of a much larger scheme of getting traffic out of Parliament Square altogether. There is nothing exclusive about the scheme we are proposing. It is the first step.
That brings me to one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). Is the provision proposed in the report adequate to the prospective needs? I suppose that it probably is not. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is right in his estimate of 1,300 cars to be parked in a few years' time. That may well be so. But if our proposal goes through, on the same ground space on which at present we can park 220 cars we shall be able to park 500 by going down. If this was a scheme which excluded those others which may come at a later date, perhaps there would be a case for looking at it even more carefully. My feeling is that over the years my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford may well be right when they say that we shall have to think in bigger terms. But tonight I have heard no alternative suggestion of the bigger way in which we should be thinking and planning at the moment. I do not believe that to proceed with this scheme excludes other additional schemes in the future.

Sir G. Nabarro: But does it prejudice them? Does it prejudice a complete traffic scheme for the approaches and exits from Parliament Square? That is the scheme I want to see.

Mr. Carr: I do not believe it does. Certainly the Committee does not believe it does, and that is why I picked up the point by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West about the possibility of the proposed scheme linking up with further underground works, both of a car park nature and for the passage of through traffic.
We have been advised that these things can be connected with the underground car park as it is now proposed. The Committee was faced with a difficulty here. Soon we shall be putting a report before the House about the new parliamentary building. There we shall see the same sort of difficulty in another sphere. If Parliament never makes a proposal because it cannot see the complete problem over the next 10 or 20 years, the great danger is that it will never make any practical proposal and never do anything because it is always waiting for the big perfect overall plan. The years go by and nothing is done.

Mr. Deedes: My right hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point when he says that some of the critics have failed to put forward a practical alternative. The kind of thing we have in mind is the possibility of a cut and cover scheme for Victoria Tower Gardens as was constructed in Hyde Park to be used for all-day parking unrelated to the needs of Members of Parliament. This would leave New Palace Yard free for the rapid entrance and exit of traffic concerned with the business of the House. That is not the perfect solution but there are also other alternatives which are not altogether impractical.

Mr. Carr: I cannot deny that my right hon. Friend's suggestion is a possibility. I can only say that I am satisfied that the Services Committee looked at these things and made a judgment about them. My personal judgment is that in due course, perhaps by the year 2000, or even 1990. We may have to make provision under New Palace Yard and under Victoria Tower Gardens as well. In the time we have available I believe on balance we are right to recommend the scheme we have put forward at the moment.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford asked me certain questions, including whether the scheme would aid us in the conduct of our business. He had

a vision of a lot of cars arriving at the underground car park. I would not like to promise him that his vision is incorrect but I ask him to have another vision about what will happen on top of New Palace Yard in two, three, four or five years if we do nothing. I suspect that that vision might be even more alarming than his vision. I find what is happening now in New Palace Yard lather difficult, and I notice how quickly that difficulty has escalated.
It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South to talk about us lucky and favoured Ministers who arrive in our chauffeur-driven cars. He also talks about the privilege of parking in Speaker's Court. That is a privilege for which we are grateful to Mr. Speaker. But sometimes we are lucky if we can get as far as Speaker's Court because the melée, the crush, on the surface of New Palace Yard is already so great—and it is getting greater—that it is not an unusual experience for Ministers to have to disembark from our wonderful chauffeur-driven cars, take to our feet and thread our way with difficulty through the solid mass of cars which cover the whole surface of New Palace Yard. That is no doubt very good for our health, but it shows that there is a big problem.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman is bringing tears to our eyes.

Mr. Carr: I am not feeling sorry for myself. I enjoy walking, and it is good for us, but what I have described shows that the picture of there being no problem at present is a false one.
I believe that what we propose, although it is by no means perfect, will present lesser difficulties in a few years' time than those we have now or those we should have if we did nothing substantial about the situation.
People ask about the environment. I do not believe that the Palace of Westminster and we as Members of Parliament contribute very greatly to the general pleasure and amenity of the area. When people look into New Palace Yard they see it packed with cars. I ask the House at least to think about the prospect that the whole surface of New Palace Yard will be free of motor cars. I believe


this will add to the environmental pleasures and amenities of the area, and will be preferable to the present situation. It should be one of our objectives to try to remove the clutter of our motor cars from the surface of New Palace Yard.
At this time of night I must not be carried away in my spokesman ship for the Services Committee, but, filled with enthusiasm as a new Chairman, I should like to deal briefly with one or two other points which are of importance. The hon. Member for West Ham, North mentioned the position of old Scotland Yard. We were informed that about 40 or 50 cars can be parked there. But let us say that the true figure is 100. That still does not begin to cope with the difficult parking problems for Members while the works are going on. I doubt whether it is all that much nearer than what is proposed in Broad Sanctuary, and once the buildings in Bridge Street begin to be knocked down there will be difficulties in the use of that site.
The foundations of Big Ben were looked at very carefully by engineers, and soil tests have been taken. I am not technical, but I can vouch for the fact that the matter was looked at very carefully. We received professional advice, and we are sure that the construction proposed will stabilise the foundations. Careful measurement of Big Ben is being carried out and will continue.
We realised there was danger to the catalpa trees, and skilled root pruning of them has already been undertaken by the experts of my hon. Friend's Department. When the underground car park is built special provisions in the partition wall will be undertaken, and we are assured by experts in these matters that the catalpa trees should be safe-guarded.
I assure hon. Members that the Services Committee in no way resents criticisms and questions—far from it. But I hope they will believe that we have wrestled with some of the problems they raised and that it is our genuine belief that on balance the proposal is the best one available to us. It does not exclude further developments. In the end, we must act and get on with something. A start must be made somewhere. If we go ahead we shall be doubling the car parking capacity on this area of land, and I see no reason why it should ex-

clude further developments such as those mentioned by hon. Members. Therefore, I hope the House will approve the Report.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in their Fourth Report.

Orders of the Day — MEMBERS' FOREIGN LANGUAGE COURSES

12.35 a.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made as from 1st April 1972 for the reimbursement to any Member, within a maximum of £60, of two-thirds of the cost of a commercial course of study which he has completed in a European Economic Community language.
Perhaps, at this late hour, it would be convenient if I were to move the Motion formally and then if questions are asked perhaps I would be allowed to answer them at the end of the debate.

12.36 a.m.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: In the last Session of Parliament the Leader of the House kept the House up late night after night on his Industrial Relations Bill, which, now an Act, today, above all days, has turned out to be a total wreck—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confine his remarks to the subject under discussion.

Mr. Kaufman: I shall immediately relate that exordium to the subject of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What the right hon. Gentleman did last Session has turned out to be a catastrophe. Now the right hon. Gentleman is keeping us late on matters which should have been debated much earlier in the day when more hon. Members could have been present. I regard this as an effrontery to the House—and I refer particularly to this Motion, which I oppose.
The Leader of the House said that he would answer questions. I have a number of questions to put to him. First, I should like to know simply why the


Motion has been brought forward. Other matters which have been brought forward, including the Motion which is to follow this one about reimbusing hon. Members who travel as a consequence of their parliamentary duties, have been part of what might be called "the Boyle package". This Motion is not part of the Boyle package. It has been brought forward gratuitously, and the minimum information has been provided to hon. Members. The only information which the House has about it is the minutes of the proceedings of the Services Committee on 12th April and following days, which are available from the Vote Office. When we turn to page iv of the minutes, we find less than half a page of a report of a meeting on 2nd May. The Leader of the House was in the chair. None of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench was in attendance. There was a thin attendance of the Committee. The report says:
Language training for Members of Parliament considered.
Resolved, That the proposal of the Government"—
it was a Government proposal to the Services Committee—
to contribute two-thirds of the cost, within a maximum of £60, of a commercial course of study in respect of an European Economic Community language"—
I like the archaism, "an European"—
be approved".
That is all the House of Commons is told about a proposal which I believe to be both controversial and of some consequence.
I oppose the Motion for four reasons. The first is that it is purely a European Economic Community Motion. It is for a Member who studies a European Economic Community language. Therefore, it is part and parcel of the Government's Common Market policy. It is an extension of it. It is a policy which is very controversial in the House. The fact that the Government, in putting forward this Motion, are proposing to recompense only hon. Members who study one of the EEC languages proves a view that a number of us hold—that the whole European policy of this Government is inward looking.
I am sorry that the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) has

not been selected. It is the one that would have deleted "European Economic Community" and inserted "foreign". Then there would have been some logic to it, the logic that hon. Members seeking to learn a foreign language which they regarded as part of their parliamentary activities would be recompensed. Surely, looking at the languages of the Community and the problems of the world, it would be just as valuable for an hon. Member to learn Russian or Chinese, Spanish—

Mr. J. D. Concannon: Arabic?

Mr. Kaufman: —or Arabic, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) rightly says. There are so many problems in connection with oil and the Middle East. Urdu is a language which is useful to hon. Members with Pakistani constituents. All those languages would be at least as valuable to hon. Members as EEC languages. Therefore, I oppose this Motion, because it is purely an EEC Motion, limited and inward looking.

Mr. David Steel: The hon. Member read out the recommendation accepted by the Services Committee. I hope that he will accept that the Select Committee on Services represents very different views on the European question. That is certainly not how we considered it.

Mr. Kaufman: I am interested in what the hon. Member says as he is not recorded as having attended and he therefore, speaks vicariously when he uses the word "We". In any case, the fact that 10 hon. Gentlemen meeting in the service of the House took a view does not mean that it is a view which I have to accept. I do not question the bona fides of the Services Committee in accepting the Government proposal, nor do I deny that there would be hon. Members on the Services Committee who oppose the Common Market, although if I take my hon. Friends on the Committee, the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan), the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) and the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Well beloved), they are all supporters of British entry to the Community. The only one of my hon. Friends who attended the meeting and is an opponent of our


entry is my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. David Reed), and the report does not say that the proposal was accepted unanimously.
Since the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) was not present, I do not know whether he can tell us whether it was accepted unanimously. [Interruption.] My right hon Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) was not present. I said that nobody from our Front Bench was there.
Even if one accepted the Government proposal that it was an EEC language which was to be studied, why only one language? Why does the motion limit hon. Gentlemen in that way? Who is to judge the relative importance of learning French rather than German, German rather than Italian, or Italian rather than Danish? It says "a European Community language". Like the Industrial Relations Act, this is badly phrased and open to a large number of interpretations. On that basis I want the House to reject it.
What is a European Economic Community language? Is it just a majority language spoken in any European Economic Community country, or any language spoken in such a country?

Hon. Members: Welsh.

Mr. Kaufman: I will come to that in a moment.

Mr. John Mendelson: We should be here all night.

Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) is at liberty to leave at any time. There is no Whip on this.
For example, if one considers those European Economic Community countries which have more than one language and one looks at Belgium, to be able to speak only French in Beligum could well be offensive to the large and influential Flemish-speaking section of that country, which is very much divided on linguistic lines.
Again, the Motion is so badly phrased that one can ask whether it would allow a Member of this House to learn a language—and obtain recompense for it—spoken by a minority in France, the

Basques, whose language is variously known as Euskara, Eskuara or Üskara. Could an English Member of the House use the facility which the Government wish to provide to learn Welsh or Gaelic, both of which are spoken in the United Kingdom, which if the Government have their way is to be a country of the European Economic Community?
I go further. Under the terms of the Motion—the fact that it can be ridiculed in this way is an indictment of the Motion—an hon. Member could claim £60 for a course of study in English, because English will be a language of the European Economic Community if we enter it. When one has considered all these points in detail—if some of them seem ironic it is the fault of the Leader of the House for the way he has phrased his Motion—even if the Government reject them all the Motion is in any event unacceptable.
I am not among those hon. Members who criticise the Government or who would in any way acquiesce in criticism of the Government for the facilities they have provided to Members under the Boyle Report. It is cheap and easy to criticise the Government for that and hon. Members on this side as well as on the Government side have not refrained from doing so. The Government have been courageous in accepting the Boyle proposals. My only criticism of the Government would be that the facilities available to Members of the House following the Boyle Report are, in my opinion, still not satisfactory in terms, for example, of accommodation and secretarial assistance.
Therefore, I am not opposing the Motion because of any carping view that facilities for hon. Members should not be provided at public expense, because we do our duties on behalf of our electorate. In this context however, and nevertheless, I believe that the provision of this facility would be a misuse of public funds. This facility, unlike the facilities recommended by the Boyle Report—of which, I repeat, this is not one—is in my view marginal to a Member of Parliament in carrying out his duties. It could be used by a Member of Parliament for many other things, including his business and indeed his holiday enjoyment.
What is more, assuming that the facility is available to Ministers as hon. Members of the House—the Motion states "any Member"—and the Prime Minister is blatantly in need of French lessons—it could involve the Treasury in the outlay of £37,800 of public money. I submit that a sum of that order could be far better—

Mr. Eric Deakins: This could also apply to an hon. Member who took several courses, one after the other, in different languages. The sum of £37,800 is based on the fact that each Member learns only one language, but if an hon. Member chose to learn more than one language that sum would be doubled or trebled.

Mr. Kaufman: Yes, if that interpretation is correct, the outlay could be very much greater. But, whatever the outlay, I believe the sum of £37,800 could be spent far better in this building on facilities for hon. Members and certainly, for example, in my constituency on playgrounds for children. For these reasons I oppose this Motion.

12.51 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I, too, oppose the Motion. I object to Members of Parliament obtaining privileges as compared with the ordinary taxpayer if it is not essential for hon. Members to have those privileges in carrying out their parliamentary duties. I am certainly in favour of hon. Members being given every help and assistance in all possible ways to help them adequately to carry out their constitutional duties. If the Motion were worded in such a way as to say that a taxpayer should have the same privileges if carrying out the same duties as a Member of Parliament, I should be in favour of it.
It has been said that Members of Parliament who wished to learn a language should be able to claim a £60 allowance. The Motion talks about
…a course of study…completed in a European Economic Community language".
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) has said, it would be possible for an hon. Member, having claimed £60 for the learning of one language, then to claim a further £60 for the learning of another

language. If this were done a number of times, the figure of £60 may well turn into a total of £400.

Mr. Deakins: The more the Motion is studied, the more complicated it becomes. The Motion does not state that the hon. Member concerned should have completed the course of study successfully. Therefore, it would be possible for an hon. Member to begin a course of study without giving much of his mind or attention to it—and this is understandable when it relates to a busy Member of Parliament—and then not to complete the course successfully. It might be necessary for him to take the course again on a later occasion.

Mr. Lewis: I agree with my hon. Friend. Every twelve months the hon. Member concerned could say "I have completed one course and now want to take another". He could in that way draw £60 every twelve months.
What I do say is why should Members of Parliament be entitled to claim? Why should a business man, a company director, a doctor or lawyer—indeed any taxpayer—not be so entitled? After all, this is to be paid for by the taxpayer; it will not be paid for by the Prime Minister out of his 85 per cent. increase in salary. [Interruption.] Nor by the Leader of the Opposition out of his 110 per cent. increase in salary. I do not see why we should ask the taxpayer to pay £60 for maybe seven or eight languages. I certainly could not finish a course in the time allowed. I would have to come back two or three times, but I would claim my £60.
If it were a genuine attempt to assist in exporting to the Common Market it might be acceptable. The Minister could then say how this will help the economy. I read in HANSARD that there has been a 200 per cent. increase in the imports of foreign cars, mainly from the Common Market countries in the last year. This is before the reduction in tariffs. What will the figures be when the tariff reductions are made? Will we be assisted in selling our cars overseas by learning languages?

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Would my hon. Friend not agree that the reason why foreign car manufacturers—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not follow the elasticity of the remarks of his hon. Friend.

Mr. Lewis: I was giving way to my hon. Friend who was asking me a question about the remark I had made about learning a foreign language.

Mr. Griffiths: Would my hon. Friend not agree that the reason why foreign manufacturers do so well in this country is because their representatives have been educated to speak English? Similarly, if we as Members of Parliament were more acquainted with European languages we would be far more effective.

Mr. Lewis: I was coming to that. If it may be useful to us to learn a foreign language, how much more important is it for those who actually make and sell cars to be able to speak a foreign language and how much more important is it that they should be able to get this £60?

Mr. G. B. Drayson: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that any industrial firm selling goods abroad can pay for its employees to learn a foreign language and charge its expenses against tax on behalf of the business? This is already being done.

Mr. Lewis: I agree. It is true that some firms can claim tax relief in that manner if expense is incurred in the furtherance of the business. However, individuals cannot get that advantage. Smaller businesses and one-man businesses, which cannot afford to pay such expenses, even though they are written off against tax, cannot take advantage.
It can be argued that a Member of Parliament, if he can prove that he has incurred such expenses in the course of his parliamentary duties, can claim £60 or whatever he will against his income tax. Is the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) saying that we cannot be treated differently from the ordinary person? We can claim such relief if we want to do so.
I am objecting that we shall be treated in a different manner from the ordinary taxpayer. This advantage is being allowed without any special reason. If it was to be given to every citizen who could prove a necessity because of the development and improvement of his

business with the Common Market countries, I would agree.
I turn to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ard-wick (Mr. Kaufman). If this is a good thing—I am not arguing the merits of the matter—why limit it to the Common Market countries? We export to countries other than the EEC. We have done so for more years than I care to remember and for more years than the EEC has existed. Therefore, why should we not say that Members of Parliament and other persons should be allowed to claim £60 for any foreign language they may learn, particularly countries where we have an export business? I cannot see why a Member of Parliament should be able to claim £60 to learn French or German but not Swedish. What is the difference? I cannot understand why one should not be allowed to claim this advantage for learning Finnish.
Let us go one further and one better. The biggest potential market we can ever consider is China. It would take a long time to learn Chinese—it would take me and perhaps most hon. Members a long time—but I suggest that this is the language we might encourage hon. Members and members of the public to learn.
I know that there have been a number of Motions on the Order Paper recently condemning the Japanese for flooding the British market with ball bearings. What a wonderful thing if this Motion were so worded that it included the opportunity to learn Japanese.
I cannot see why the Government are picking out these countries. I am being dishonest with the House. I do know why. So does my hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick. The reason is that we have a Prime Minister who is a bit hatters, mentally deranged, about the Common Market. The right hon. Gentleman means to go into the Common Market with or without the full-hearted consent of Parliament or the people; he means to drag us in whether we like it or not. As a means of helping us in, he is suggesting that Members of Parliament should get a £60 grant for learning one of the languages of the Common Market. I do not see why we should support the Prime Minister in his endeavours to further his Common Market plan by learning the languages of other countries.
The Motion refers to the languages of the Six—the enlarged Nine when it comes about. However, I should like to see this proposal extended to include any language. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West, or possibly my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), said that we might even claim the £60 for learning English.

Mr. Michael English: Not me.

Mr. Lewis: Perhaps it was my hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick. The Motion refers to
a commercial course of study which he has completed in a European Economic Community language.
At the moment we could not claim the £60 for learning English; but when we are in—which God forbid—we shall be able to claim it for learning English. I assume one would have to go to a private commercial college—not to a Department of Education and Science technical college—go through a course in English and then claim £60 for having learned a language of the European Economic Community.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: May I help my hon. Friend to make his point? Governments, both Labour and Conservative, have supported the nurture of the Welsh language, which I am proud to speak. Therefore, if and when we go into the Common Market, Wales as a nation will go in. Would my hon. Friend advocate that Welsh would then indeed be a European Economic Community language?

Mr. Lewis: I certainly should be of that view. I am not a legal gentleman. It is a pity that one of the Law Officers is not here to advise us. If we go into the Common Market and I learn Welsh, or Gaelic for that matter, I suggest that I should be entitled to claim the £60 because it would be a language of the European Economic Community. Whether I should be able to learn Welsh is another matter. Although I have some Welsh blood, I am not sure I could learn the Welsh language. However, the Motion is so loosely worded that I think that would be covered.
I do not think the Government mean the Motion to cover that point. They

have in mind the learning of the languages of the Six, and the extended Nine. I do not think they mean the Ten, because that would include English.
As the Motion is worded, I could go to a private commercial study course in English and, having completed it, claim the £60, and say to the Government: "There it is, I have learned the languge." Having completed that course in, say, six, three, two months or even one month, I could go back and take another course. Each month, or even each week—there is no time limit—I could complete a course and claim my £60. I could spend one month on English, the next month on French and the next month on German. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) shakes his head. Perhaps he will tell me where the Motion says that I cannot do that.

Sir John Langford-Holt: I was expressing the hope that the hon. Gentleman would come to a conclusion. We have his point.

Mr. Lewis: If the hon. Gentleman does not like what I am saying he can leave the Chamber. The Motion is so loosely worded that it gives to Members of Parliament privileges that are almost unlimited, unnecessary and greatly in excess of those available to the general taxpayer, and I cannot support it.

1.11 a.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) possibly is not entirely serious in what he says. If it is possible according to the exact wording of the Motion for him to take a course in English and claim a proficiency allowance that would be his own responsibility. As with similar Resolutions relating to hon. Members' activities, this Motion when it becomes a Resolution will be followed by rules which hon. Members abide by.
If the hon. Gentleman received a proficiency allowance for studying English I am sure his constituents would be interested. The sum of money paid to him would appear in the Estimates of the House. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) said it would not be generally known who had received such an allowance, but it would


be perfectly easy to find out by putting down a Question.
The hon. Member for West Ham, North made much of the large number of grants that could be claimed. Any hon. Member who could pass the proficiency test which no doubt would follow the courses—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Motion does not say so.

Mr. Cooke: The words may not be contained in the Motion, but the House is not just governed by words in Resolutions. There are rules administered by Mr. Speaker which follow Resolutions, and we all abide by them. If the hon. Gentleman managed to become proficient by taking courses in a great number of languages, good luck to him. No doubt he would be able to claim for every one, but I beg him to show a sense of proportion. The Motion is only the framework, and the Minister who replies to the debate will no doubt make the House aware that there is much more to follow.

1.14 a.m.

Mr. Michael English: Will the Leader of the House follow the honourable traditions of his office and withdraw the Motion? If the Motion is passed it puts every Member of Parliament in an utterly immoral position in relation to all that we have been saying in the last few months.
We have all been saying over the last few months that our increase in salary and allowances was fixed by an independent committee. The Government, entirely correctly and appropriately, gave an assurance that they would implement the Boyle Report. We have thus all been able to say, in the face of much hostility, that the increase in salary and allowances was determined by the Boyle Committee and that we were only—and I stress "only"—implementing it.
If the Motion is passed, we shall no longer be able to say that. This is not a question merely of whether we like the Community languages. It is a deep question as to the morality of what we are doing in relation to parliamentary salaries and allowances. This is a cash payment, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) said, the Boyle Committee never recom-

mended it. But the Boyle Committee did make a recommendation that was relevant to this matter. It mentioned that Members have great expenses in terms of having to have an additional home in London or of payment of a secretary, and so on. The Committee provided allowances for these things. It also said that Members have other expenses, which it estimated at some £200 on average—some hon. Members have more and some less. It said that it would not provide a specific allowance for all these other expenses but would allow for the figure of £200 in the salary of Members.
The Government have said that they are implementing the Boyle Report. The report was not only a collection of salaries and allowances but also contained a recommendation that no further allowance should be paid until the next review body met. I suggest that the implications are very much greater and this is why I want the right hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing the Motion. The implications of the Motion are very much greater than merely the question of what languages should be taught, because it is a direct breach of the Boyle recommendation which allowed £200 for incidental expenses of membership of this House—expenses which certainly exist, as we all know. The report said "This is allowed for in the salary and we do not want any other expenses."
If the Government are to honour their assurance of carrying out the Boyle recommendations, they should not only carry out those of direct benefit to us but the recommendation that there should be no further allowance. This may be an unpopular view, but supposing the right hon. Gentleman does not accept my request, I ask him to consider the ultimate implications. No longer will he be able to say, when a Member asks for an additional cash payment for some other purpose, "This is something that was not dealt with by the last review body." The right hon. Gentleman said only last week that he would refer a matter to the next review body because it should not be dealt with in the interim period. He will no longer be able to say that with justification because we shall be able to point out that on 14th June, 1972, he broke the principle he himself had enunciated.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Gentleman has been of great service to the


House in the past and I am sure that he will be in the future. He has fought—and I use the word advisedly—for better facilities for Members of this House. It was the strong request from a great number of Members for a language laboratory that led the Select Committee to examine the possibility. But, as the hon. Gentleman knows from his own intimate knowledge of this Palace—it is probably greater than mine—there is no room for such a facility here. It was out of the proposal for a language laboratory here that the suggestion in this Motion arose.

Mr. English: I take the point and, strangely enough, as the hon. Gentleman will see, I accept it.
I do not ask the Leader of the House to make no provision for hon. Members to learn languages. I ask him to withdraw his Motion, and I do that because it proposes a direct cash payment. I know that it is offset against a Member's direct cash expense, but so is the secretarial allowance, and so is the accommodation allowance. If this is to be done, it should be done by providing the service, which is very different. It should not be done by means of a direct breach of the Boyle Committee's recommendations.
The Leader of the House Is creating a precedent by creating a direct cash payment contrary to the Boyle recommendations. I supported the right hon. Gentleman in spirit the other day when he refused to consider a proposal put forward by hon. Members and said that he would refer it to the next review body. He was right to do that. However, his proposal in this Motion will open the flood gates to a series of requests for additional allowances. The terms of the Motion provide only for courses in European Community languages, but the way will be opened to requests for assistance towards courses in other foreign languages and for other educational purposes.
When the Deputy Leader of my party first came to this House, he felt that he had time to spare to make himself more useful to the House, and he took an external law degree. That was very laudable. He did not wish to become a lawyer or to earn additional money. However, presumably he spent money on the course. He felt that it would be useful to obtain a law degree so that he might

understand the technicalities of legislation of the kind that we have to deal with every day. One can hardly say that he did not succeed in his ambition to become a more useful Member of this House.
The extensions are endless. Why should not we train Members of Parliament as outside organisations do? Why not arrange for academics to create a course of study of the procedure of this House? New Members are thrown in at the deep end. They have no knowledge of how this House works. Some training would be very laudable. But it should be done as it is in large industrial organisations. The Government have modern facilities for teaching people languages. If it was thought fit to enlarge the use to which they were put, they might need some extension. However, they are not just used at the moment to teach Ministers languages or to refresh their knowledge of them. Mr. Deputy Speaker, one of your predecessors went on such a course. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) that it would be worth considering how training facilities for hon. Members in matters useful to them might be provided. I suggest that it should be done by the Government or by the House, but not on a cash payment basis which is infinitely extendable to training and a host of other matters.
If I might remind the Leader of the House of his former appointment for a moment, we are not setting a very good precedent to the country in general industrial terms when we say, "You must negotiate, and you must accept reasonable pay awards in the light of inflation and the conditions of your industry ", if we receive a pay recommendation from an impartial review body and immediately we break it to our own advantage.
Hon. Members have referred to the political tinge to the right hon. Gentleman's Motion. It is not customary in this House to put through matters relating to its procedure or services if they have a controversial tinge. Obviously some of my hon. Friends feel that because it is restricted to European Community languages there is such a tinge to it.
Hon. Members have torn this proposal to pieces on its detail, but what is surely even more important is that we should follow the recommendations of our


own review body. They do not relate to the services of the House. If the Services Committee thinks that we should be provided with language courses, there are more than enough resources in the Government or the House of Commons to provide such courses if there is a demand for them. But we should not do it on this basis, and the Leader of the House should withdraw the Motion for that reason.

1.25 a.m.

Mr. Eric Deakins: My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) gave one powerful reason for not proceeding with this Motion tonight—the absence of any recommendation along these lines in the Boyle Report, which covered comprehensively the pay and conditions of Members of Parliament. I have two misgivings—one minor, the other fundamental—about this Motion.
The minor one is that the Motion may be thought desirable because learning a foreign language is presumed by the Services Committee and the Leader of the House to make us in some way better Members of Parliament. That is a worthwhile and praiseworthy objective, but there are far more important ways in which hon. Members could spend this money, later to be reimbursed, to make them better Members. It could not be argued that some fluency in a foreign language is of more than marginal importance to the job of an MP in the United Kingdom, where the national language is English.
One way of spending this money which should have much more priority would be in encouraging hon. Members to take courses in the social services, particularly social case work, since the most valuable part of our work is helping our constituents, most of whose problems should be dealt with but are not by trained social workers—including housing and family problems—and we should train ourselves properly for this work.
Even though it is only £60 a course, this money should go to help us improve our minds and our ability to perform services to our constituents. After all, our only legal obligation as MPs is to turn up at the start of a five-year Parliament to sign the book and take the oath—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: We do not even have to do that.

Mr. Deakins: I stand corrected. And if a Member goes to stay in the Bahamas until the next General Election, he can still draw his salary. Our only party obligation is to turn up and vote. But the reason that we are paid £4,500 a year is to serve our constituents. The ability to speak a foreign language, particularly just an EEC language, will be of only very slight importance in improving our ability to service our constituents, whereas my suggestions for social courses and so on would certainly do that. That is my minor point.
I come now to my major point. It may be that, in the opinion of the Select Committee, the Motion is not only desirable but absolutely necessary. The Select Committee is saying that without some such provision for courses, Members of Parliament do not have the ability to speak foreign languages. If that is so—I suspect that it is—it discloses a very serious state of affairs in the teaching of foreign languages in secondary schools.
Here I interpolate the fact that the Motion is not restricted to hon. Members who have not had the advantage which many of us have had of taking four-year or five-year courses in foreign languages at secondary schools. I have no doubt that there are hon. Members, particularly on this side of the House, who left school without having taken any foreign language course, partly because they did not attend schools which taught foreign languages, perhaps during the First World War and just after it. It is a serious matter if they have to go abroad but cannot speak a foreign language. If the Motion were so worded that it was confined to hon. Members who had not had the educational advantage which the rest of us have had, I should be the first to support it fully. One Amendment standing in my name, which has not been selected—I fully understand the reason for that, Mr. Deputy Speaker—sought to cover that point.
No one would wish to deprive hon. Members of the chance to learn a foreign language if they did not have the chance of doing so at school. But the Motion


goes much wider. It makes money available to any hon. Member, even to those who have learned foreign languages at school.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend keeps talking about "a foreign language". The Motion does not say "a foreign language" but "a European Economic Community language".

Mr. Deakins: I take my hon. Friend's point. I hope that the House will forgive me. It is a little troublesome to keep saying "a European Economic Community language". The House will accept that I am referring to such languages. If after having been taught a foreign language at school hon. Members cannot speak that language without an expensive commercial refresher course, a very serious state of affairs is disclosed, and this is a very serious reflection on the state of foreign language teaching in our secondary schools.
What the Motion is implying, if not specifically stating, is that our foreign language teaching is incapable of producing Members of Parliament who can speak a foreign language without having to spend money later in life on re-learning a language. My concern is about the public expenditure implications of the Motion. If the Motion is necessary, vast sums of public money are being wasted in our secondary education system on foreign language teaching which does not produce people who, in adult life, without further courses, are capable of speaking a foreign language.
The Department of Education and Science cannot answer a question of mine on how much money is devoted to foreign language teaching in our secondary schools. That is a pity. But I have worked out an approximate cost. On the basis of about 12,000 teachers working full time in our maintained secondary schools teaching modern foreign languages on an average salary, at the latest count, of over £2,100 a year, and on the basis that teaching costs are about 55 per cent. of total educational costs at secondary level, I conclude that foreign language teaching in our secondary schools is at present costing about £45 million to £50 million.
We are implying by the terms of the Motion that money spent on education is being virtually wasted if it is necessary to provide hon. Members with facilities to learn a foreign language after they have already had a four-or five-year course at secondary school level.
This is an appalling state of affairs and a commentary on the expenditure of money on our schools. If my analysis of the situation is correct I believe it needs investigation by the Department of Education and Science. I feel so strongly on the matter that I believe the Leader of the House should defer consideration of the Motion until we have a report on the quality of foreign language teaching in our schools.
I now come to my Amendment, in line 3 leave out "commercial". This was not my Amendment originally. The idea for it was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) who hopes to speak later in the debate. I am sure he will want to develop the point. It is basically a probing Amendment designed to find out the exact meaning of "commercial". If it means a commercial course at a school that is run for profit only, my hon. Friends and I would be extremely worried about the purpose of the Motion. If the meaning is quite innocent and merely relates to a course which costs money, for example at an evening institute, polytechnic or technical college we would understand. But without an explanation we have misgivings about the use of the word.
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Motion, to leave out "commercial".

Mr. John Roper: Unlike my hon. Friends, I am in general agreement with the terms of the Motion but I would like to restrict what I have to say to the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins). I regret that the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons), which would have allowed us to include a debate on the advantage of including within the terms of the Motion other languages apart from those of the EEC has not been selected. I am sorry that the important subject of the learning of languages is being confused to some extent with de-


bates on entry into the EEC, which is a different matter.
It is important for hon. Members to know the European languages when they are attending meetings of the Council of Europe and of the Western European Union. I have not taken part in these meetings, but I understand that, while translation services are provided in the formal meetings, there are many informal discussions with fellow parliamentarians and without some knowledge of the languages being spoken these meetings are not as fruitful for hon. Members as they might be.
We are concerned over the use of the word "commercial". There seem to be three possible interpretations of the word. One is that a commercial course of study would be a study of a language with particular reference to commercial use. I do not think that is what the Leader of the House has in mind. It is obviously not appropriate to us as Members of Parliament merely to learn commercial German or commercial French. We are concerned with French, German, Italian or Dutch for much wider purposes, and, therefore, I do not think that is the intended meaning of the word.
An alternative interpretation would be that a commercial language course would be one which must be paid for, as distinct from one provided free. This interpretation seems slightly implausible, because if we did not have to pay for it there would be no case for reimbursement. Therefore, I suppose the implied meaning is that it is a course run by a commercial organisation. If so, it would presumably exclude courses run by universities both in this country and abroad and by polytechnics in this country—there is one within a short distance of the House which provides appropriate language courses, very much of the nature concerned—or by such non-commercial bodies as the German Institute, which has an office and a school of languages within a couple of miles of the Palace of Westminster.
I do not consider myself capable of assessing the relative merits of courses provided by different organisations and bodies. I am extremely grateful to the Library, which has collected a most valuable set of brochures of different commercial language courses available in London. It is a fascinating selection

of courses. One of the courses which might well be appropriate to hon. Members is that organised by the German Institute, a body which is run under the auspices of the German Government and which has their financial support. Therefore, it would not normally be considered to be a commercial organisation, any more than the British Council would be considered to be a commercial organisation in any country where it operates.
I hope the Leader of the House will be able to accept the Amendment or give us an assurance that the Motion would not preclude hon. Members from taking courses at such non-commercial bodies as universities, polytechnics or institutes sponsored by overseas Governments, such as the German Institute.
I am sorry it has not been possible to find a site for a language laboratory in the House or elsewhere in the near vicinity of the Palace. I am sure that in the long run that would be the best solution, but in the absence of space I believe the Motion represents a second-best solution which is desirable, though I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept the Amendment or give us an assurance on this important matter.

1.42 a.m.

Mr. R. Carr: As on the previous motion, I am speaking in my capacity as Chairman of the Services Committee in support of a Report to the House by that Committee, and I am in no way pressing the matter from a Government point of view. It is entirely for the House to make up its mind what it wishes.

Mr. Kaufman: We accept that, but the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the Services Committee was considering, and approved, a proposal of the Government. That is made quite clear in the Committee's minutes.

Mr. Carr: That may be so, but the Committee agreed with it and thought it was a good idea. It is an all-party Committee and, thank goodness, its members are not appointed after some political testing or discovery as to which section of their party they belong to. I do not have to look around it very long to realise that it contains anti-Common Market Members and not only pro-Common Market Members.
We did not wish the word "commercial" to have any of the implications


suggested by the hon. Members for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) and Farnworth (Mr. Roper). The best way to make that clear is to advise the Committee to accept the Amendment to leave out "commercial". The word crept in. It is not necessary, and we would not wish to exclude the sort of institutions the two hon. Gentlemen mentioned.
We were asked why the proposition had been brought forward and why it had been put to the Committee in the first place, and therefore, presumably, why it recommended it to the House. The answer is simple. We were trying to meet customer demand. Expressions of need were put to us and an effort was made on both sides to discover how great the demand was. We had a positive request from no fewer than 93 Members on both sides of the House for this sort of service. That is not an insubstantial expression of demand from fellow Members, and the Services Committee was right to take it seriously.
The purpose is clear. We are already involved in European institutions, apart from the Common Market. Most of us would agree that, in or out of the Common Market, the future of this country is probably more tied up with Europe than it was a few decades ago. That is probably inevitable. There are European institutions outside the Common Market. It helps hon. Members to do their duty to this House and, therefore, to the country if they are able to participate more freely in these institutions and to talk the languages of other members who join in them.
But this Motion is related particularly to the EEC. While there are members of each and every party who will oppose this country's membership of the EEC, no matter what the terms are, and who will go on opposing it honourably to their dying day, it is a fact that each party in the House is firmly committed in principle to Britain's membership of the EEC; and that is just as true of the main opposition party as it is of my party. The Leader of the Opposition was at pains to emphasise that commitment in principle only in the last two or three days in a major public speech. The argument, he says, is about the terms. He says that he does not like the terms which

the present Government have negotiated. But presumably he hopes that one day he will be Prime Minister again, and he is confident of his ability to negotiate the terms which he would wish to recommend to the country. It would be interesting if that ever happened.
Therefore, we must expect that, whichever party is in power, this country will be a member of the EEC in the near future. That being so, hon. Members will have to participate in the institutions of the Community, and the Services Committee therefore believed that it would be to the advantage of the House, and necessary if Members are to serve to the full the interests of those they represent, that as many of us as possible, certainly those of us who may be called upon to serve the House in the institutions of the EEC, should be able to speak, if not all the continental languages, then one or two of them. That is undeniably the purpose of the Motion.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I revert to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Leader of the Opposition having confirmed that he is in favour of the Common Market. That may be the case, but the Leader of the Opposition has, for a much longer period, been a confirmed Commonwealth supporter, and the Leader of the House is not suggesting that we should have the opportunity to learn Indian languages, Punjabi, and the African languages of the Commonwealth. If that was in the Motion, he would be going full steam ahead with the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Carr: I am glad to say that I am also a confirmed Commonwealth supporter and there is nothing inconsistent between that and being a supporter of British membership of the Community. They are strongly complementary and if Britain is to be an effective member of the Commonwealth she will be more effective within the EEC than outside.
As I was explaining, the Commonwealth does not have institutions which require the learning and knowledge of other languages. One thing about the Commonwealth now is that English is the common language used in all our institutions and meetings, and any hon. Member who has attended Commonwealth meetings of any kind will know that that


is the case. Representatives of Parliaments of the countries of the Commonwealth, whatever their relations with Britain, regard this feature as one of the strengths of the Commonwealth.
However, if we are to draw into the European institutions as strongly as we should, we should speak their language, and that is the purpose of this Motion.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and others, it is misguided in principle to be judging this Motion as if it were on a par with the matters dealt with by the Boyle Committee. I do not regard the proposal in the Motion as part of the pay and conditions of hon. Members of this House.
What about the Library? Is it wrong that because the Boyle Committee did not suggest that we should have a Library that we should? Should we perhaps give it up because it is somehow wrong?
If I may go further, I agree with the hon. Member that we should provide a service. We should have a language laboratory so that we should make use of such language teaching facilities as exist within the Civil Service. There is nothing in this Motion to prevent that. I think I am right in recollecting that the Services Committee specifically refers to that possibility, but the truth is that the number of places available in any Civil Service course for hon. Members is too small. There is a great demand. We should have, in this modern world, a language laboratory available to us, just as any big company has nowadays. The fact remains—and the Services Committee got a sub-committee to look into this—that there are not the physical facilities available within the premises for such a

language laboratory. Therefore, are the Services Committee to say that it thinks there should be a service available to hon. Members, like the Library, and do nothing until a new parliamentary building is erected and working? That is bound to be some years away even if we can all agree on what we want, and that is the next subject I shall have the honour, or difficulty, of speaking on in my capacity as Chairman of the Services Committee.

That will be some years ahead. So the Services Committee said: "We believe this should be a service; where vacancies are available in Civil Service courses they should be used by Members of Parliament, but they are not adequate to meet the demand and we cannot provide the service ourselves, so temporarily we are prepared, not to pay the whole cost, but to help hon. Members to meet the cost of learning these languages, which we believe increasing numbers of hon. Members will need in order to do their duty to Parliament within the context of Britain being a member of the European Economic Community.

That was the rationale behind the report. I repeat, however, that it is entirely for the House to make up its mind about this, but I hope that hon. Members, even those who from the most deeply-held motives do not wish to see this country a member of the European Economic Community, will consider the Motion on its merits and accept the recommendation of the Services Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put: —

The House divided:  Ayes 19, Noes 4.

Division No. 218.]
AYES
[2.0 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Goodhew, victor
Roper, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Gower, Raymond
Scott, Nicholas


Carlisle, Mark
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Wiggin, Jerry


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Clegg, Walter
Haselhurst, Alan
Mr. Hugh Rossi and Mr. Hamish Gray.


Cooke, Robert
Hawkins, Paul



Emery, Peter
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest



Fox, Marcus
Money, Ernle



NOES


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Drayson, G. B.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Mr. Michael English and Mr. Gerald Kaufman.




Mr. Gerald Kaufman.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir R. Grant-Ferris): Since it appears from the result of the Division that 40 Members are not present, I declare under Standing Order 29 that the Question is not decided and the business accordingly stands over until the next sitting of the House.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

Orders of the Day — SHOPLIFTING OFFENCES

2.5 a.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: I am grateful for this opportunity, my first Adjournment debate, to raise a subject which has given me considerable interest and caused me not a little concern in the last 18 months. My interest was initiated when a constituent came to tell me that his wife had been accused of shoplifting from a supermarket. The case had been twice postponed, once because the store detective was on holiday and on the second occasion because the policeman in the case was giving evidence in another court. During the three months which had elapsed this woman had had a nervous breakdown and her health had been irretrievably impaired.
When the case finally came up—I had by this time taken some interest in it and advised the prosecution, the defence and the court that I would be present—the prosecution offered no evidence and the case was dismissed within a minute. My constituent's wife's health in the meantime had been ruined and all apparently for no particularly good reason.
This started my interest in the problem. My studies have shown that in the last 10 years there has been an enormous increase in the number of supermarkets and in the amount of shoplifting. I do not want to weary the House with figures at this hour but in 1965 there were 66,000 shoplifting offences known to the police. Last year there were nearly 120,000. In 1965 there were 2,250 supermarkets and in 1971 there were 4,800. It is my contention that these figures are by no means unconnected. My proposition is simple: that more supermarkets equals more shoplifting.
The question I ask, and the question which I believe the Home Office is asking now in an internal working party is: Is this increase in shoplifting a result of the system of supermarket shopping or is it some strange defect which has gripped the British public in the last few years? I believe it is the system of supermarket shopping which has been responsible for this rapid increase in shoplifting.
It is no part of my business now to make out that everyone who shoplifts is innocent or that the stores do not have a part to play in this. What I say is that the small number of people who introduced this system to this country have changed the shopping habits of millions. It is possible to say that as a result of the introduction of supermarket shopping the supermarket proprietors have been responsible for the rapid increase in crime. In many towns and cities women doing their weekly shopping have little choice—usually it is between one supermarket and another. The old style shop in which my mother used to do her weekly grocery shopping no longer exists. It is true to say that in those old style shops shoplifting was virtually unknown.
I will briefly examine the attitude of supermarkets towards shoplifters or those that they accuse of shoplifting. It is clear from their literature that supermarkets expect shoplifting and that their staff are trained accordingly. I quote briefly from a document used by one of the major supermarket groups which is called "Procedure for Apprehension of Shoplifters". Clause 10 of that document says:
In the majority of cases, the customer will admit to the theft and will make all the usual excuses.
That shows that supermarkets are aggresively on the look-out for shoplifters.
My contact with the National Association of Multiple Grocers, which is the trading body representing many of the large supermarket groups, has not been encouraging in allaying my misgivings. In response to one suggestion which I put forward I received the answer: "In vain is the snare set in sight of the bird." That is not a nice way for a trading concern to regard its customers.
Yet another group told me:
Ninety-nine per cent. of all shop lifters are easily identified because they transfer


goods deliberately from the wire basket to their own shopping bag or to their person.
I would have thought that there was some dispute about that particular statistic, but if it is right it proves one of the main points which I have tried to make in the last year or so, that if it were possible for the woman shopper to leave her shopping bag outside the shopping area before she goes in, that could be an enormous help in reducing the amount of shoplifting. That system is already practised in a number of countries. I have been told of supermarkets in Sweden, Germany, Singapore and Israel where that practice is becoming more common.
My hon. and learned Friend the Under-secretary, to whom I apologise for keeping here so late, may well say to me that legislation is not appropriate. How ever, there has been a great deal of legislation concerning shops, shoppers and shopping habits ever since the Infants Relief Act, 1874. I shall not weary the House with every piece of legislation since then but since the last war there has been the Shops Act, 1950, the Food and Drugs Amendment Act, 1954, the Consumer Protection Act, 1961, the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, 1963, the Weights and Measures Act, 1963, and the Trade Descriptions Act, 1968. All that legislation was designed to influence the way in which the shopper does his shopping. There is a precedent for legislation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot on an Adjournment debate suggest anything which requires legislation.

Mr. Adley: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a precedent for Government action in creating an environment in which shops and their shoppers can intermingle. Many cases of shoplifting which are being brought by many of the supermarkets are causing great distress to many people. In Bristol considerable research has been done not only by the police but by the chamber of commerce. It must be unusual for the chamber of commerce to describe shoplifting as a social disease, which is what it has done. It also describes it as the biggest single crime in the Western world.
I shall briefly quote from two letters I have received from two eminent Bristol

solicitors who have freely given me their permission to quote from their letters. Mr. David Roberts says:
I am of the opinion that justice is less frequently done and innocent women convicted in this class of case than in any other I have experienced.
Mr. Ted Leaman, another well known solicitor in the City of Bristol, writes:
It really is a scandalous state of affairs and I for my part welcome anything that would have the effect of making it virtually impossible for these accidental takings to occur, such as by the provision of a 'handbag park'.
I could quote at great length from these two letters, but I will not. The point is that these two men have long experience of dealing with cases of this kind. Whilst it may be possible statistically to prove that supermarket shoplifting is no different from any other crime, these two men, with their long experience, would say otherwise.
I have mentioned the methods that supermarkets are forced to use in detecting shoplifters. I am concerned about the way that many of the supermarket chains seem to use the courts as a deterrent. What I am really seeking tonight, and have been for some time, is for supermarkets to be positively encouraged to spend more time considering cures for shoplifting than worrying only about catching people after they have supposedly taken something from a store.
I am also concerned about the calibre of store detectives and the fact that we appear to have no check on the security companies operating in this country. However, that is a separate subject, and I have not time to go into that aspect of the matter tonight.
Another point with which I hope my hon. and learned Friend will deal briefly concerns court proceedings. If a man is fortunate enough to be able to afford to defend himself, clearly his chances of being acquitted are much greater. This seems wrong. I have been concerned with a Bristol woman whose case was dismissed by the magistrates and about which her husband wrote to me. In his letter, he said:
The fee involved was £32.50, and although the result was a great relief to us, it seems a high price to pay, knowing of the illness of my wife, and disturbing to find that the security officer could not detect this.


He says that it would have been cheaper to plead guilty.
The point is that the security officer, according to the rules of his own store group, should not have pushed for a prosecution if he knew that she was clearly suffering from great emotional upset. According to the medical evidence, there was no doubt that this woman was far from well.
I am seeking to find a method which will not only reduce the number of mistakes by the absent-minded, but simultaneously deter the real thief. In this respect I should like to put three proposals to my hon. and learned Friend, with which he may be familiar.
First, suitably tersely worded signs should be prominently displayed at checkout points in all supermarkets warning customers to make sure they are not leaving without presenting anything for payment.
Secondly, all staff in supermarkets should be recognisably uniformed so that they can be seen to be there by the customer.
Thirdly, and perhaps more controversially because it is more complicated, I seriously advocate looking at the idea of shopping basket parks where the shopper can leave his or her shopping basket containing goods bought in other shops and stores before going round the supermarket.
I know that the retailers will put up many good reasons why these proposals—particularly the last one—cannot be put into effect. I have been told by retailers that the housewife does not like to leave her shopping basket anywhere. If women who go to the Dorchester Hotel are prepared to leave their fur coats in the cloak room, I suggest that it is only a matter of accustoming people to behave in a certain manner. The stores know about this problem.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Could not the wire trolley have a compartment in it to take the basket, with a snap lock which could be unlocked only when payment is made? That is one way of dealing with the problem which does not require legislation and to which no one would object.

Mr. Adley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but he will excuse me if I try

to complete my case in the brief time left to me. I am glad to see that my hon. Friends have been seriously considering this problem.
I have detected a difference in attitude in old-established companies whose experience pre-dates supermarkets and those whose only experience has been in the supermarket era. A lady living in Eltham Park, London, wrote to me about the experience of her mother in one of the latter type of stores:
Recently my mother, who is nearly 70 was found to have a tin of meat in her shopping bag (incidentally an item she never uses). She was hauled off to a police station, the whereabouts of which she did not know, subjected to the indignity of being treated like a criminal and then dismissed to find her own way home. You can imagine what a state she was in. She had to go through court proceedings and was bound over (whatever that means). This ordeal has left a lasting impression on an elderly woman who has led a completely honest life. Who is there to stand up for people like this and say 'This was a genuine mistake'?
There may be people who are tempted, who fall and are, therefore, dishonest. I do not deny this. My point has long been that it is the system of supermarket shopping that has made normally honest people into dishonest citizens. I quote from a letter which I have had from the editor of a newspaper in Wrexham:
The aspect that concerns me most is that an unscrupulous supermarket could use these confused people, and the resultant publicity, to warn off the hardened shoplifter. After all, it is cheaper than employing a store detective.
Supermarkets have brought about a whole new range of problems. They are bringing to court people who previously would never have been near a court, certainly not for stealing. There has been a great increase in the crime of shoplifting and the whole problem warrants grave concern. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State is also concerned about this problem. I hope he will give me an assurance that the Home Office is looking into the problem and taking it seriously.

2.24 a.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): Despite the lateness of the hour, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) for raising what I agree is an important subject. I congratulate him on the constructive manner in which


he has approached it, and on the many constructive suggestions he has made from time to time to the Home Office for dealing with the problem.
It has been said that there are more cases of shoplifting than of any other crime in the Western world. In the year 1971 over 47,000 people were prosecuted for shoplifting offences, over 44,000 of whom were convicted. Compared with 1967, that shows an increase of between 40 and 50 per cent. in a period of five years. Clearly, offences on that scale must be a matter of concern to the Government, the police and society as a whole.
I agree with my hon. Friend that there is no doubt that a major cause of the increase in offences of shoplifting is the development of large, open-display self-service stores. One must remember that stores of that type provide benefits for the shopping public, and the ready accessibility of goods on self-service shelves, coupled with the need for far fewer shop assistants, is also, from the point of view of the store-keeper, a good selling point. I think my hon. Friend will readily agree that these modern methods of merchandising are popular with the shopper and the shopkeeper alike, but it is the very attractiveness of the way in which the goods are displayed and the openness with which they are displayed that increase both the temptation and the opportunity to steal.
But I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that if people cannot resist a temptation to steal it is right that those who are caught should be prosecuted. But, of course, I also accept that it brings with it the distressing social problems he referred to—for example, the person of unblemished Character who in a moment of weakness succumbs to taking something when otherwise he would not dream of doing so; those who act in this way under severe stress; and those who are absent-minded or make a genuine mistake and then face the worry and concern of having to meet a criminal charge.
My hon. Friend criticised the comment of a person involved with supermarkets. It is right to point out that it is not always easy for those who meet a case of this kind to decide at that stage whether there has been a genuine mistake, because a person found with goods on him for which he has not paid invariably claims

that he has put them in his shopping basket inadvertently, even if he has done it quite deliberately. Therefore, I accept that it makes the task of the police in deciding which are appropriate cases to prosecute difficult, and that of the courts difficult as well.

Mr. Robert Cooke: If my suggestion were followed, that person could not put goods in his shopping basket because those would be locked up in his trolley.

Mr. Carlisle: I will come to that interesting suggestion.
The police, as with other types of offence, need sufficient evidence in order to prosecute, and the courts also weigh all the evidence carefully before deciding whether to convict. I have no doubt that the solicitor to whom my hon. Friend referred was genuine in his belief about convictions in cases of shoplifting, but I must make it clear on behalf of the Home Office that we have no evidence that innocent people are convicted of shoplifting any more than we have evidence that innocent people are convicted of other offences.

Mr. Adley: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that one county police force is now refusing to prosecute cases brought by one supermarket chain because of the way the chain has been using the courts and the lack of concern it has shown in making sure that people are guilty before it tries charging them?

Mr. Carlisle: I am aware that there is a difference of approach by police in their attitudes towards shoplifting offences. But it must be a matter for the chief officer of police in an area to decide whether criminal proceedings should be instituted. Even when the police are satisfied that a prima facie case exists, there are many cases in which in their discretion they choose to caution rather than bring a prosecution. Many prosecutions are brought not by the police but by the management of the concern. Again, I cannot believe that shop managements are other than reluctant to take proceedings unless they are satisfied that they have a good case. Some as a matter of policy do not prosecute the very old or the very young.
I want to say something about prevention rather than detection. It goes without saying that it is always better to


prevent than to detect crime, and that is true of shoplifting as well. What can be done? As my hon. Friend knows, last year a working party on internal shop security was set up by the Home Office's Standing Committee on Crime Prevention with terms of reference to consider the problems of shoplifting and theft by staff employed by shops, and it was invited to make recommendations for the prevention of these offences. The interests represented on it include those involved in the trade and consumers. Evidence has been taken from retailers and trade associations. The working party will report to the Standing Committee, although I cannot say when.
My hon. Friend has, as always, made several suggestions. He referred to the employment of uniformed security staff. This would deter some people from shoplifting and might prevent absent-minded people from putting goods into their own shopping baskets. But many retailers are opposed to this form of prevention because they believe that the presence of uniformed security staff would keep away honest customers and result in loss of trade. They prefer, therefore, to employ plain clothes detectives. However, the disadvantage is that plain clothes detectives detect rather than prevent unless customers are made aware that they are operating. A better arrangement might be a combination of both, with warning notices that these people were in operation. But, in the end, it must be for the shops to decide how to do it.
Then there is the question of anti-theft devices. My hon. Friend did not mention it specifically, although both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) will know that an experiment in Bristol last autumn demonstrated at least in the short term that such devices can be effective in reducing the degree of shoplifting in various stores.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East referred to a matter to which I attach considerable importance, and that is the use of warning notices in shops that detectives are employed. What is more, warning notices in shops at check-out points asking customers to check that they have not inadvertently put goods into their shopping baskets might deter thieves and save the absent-

minded making mistakes. This is a good idea. Some shops use warning notices, but I understand that the feeling amongst the trade is that these notices make less impact than one might believe because of the variety and number of notices in the average supermarket.
I come to my hon. Friend's point about shopping baskets. I thought that the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West was a good one. It is new to me, and I hope that the working party will look at it. It might turn out to be far too expensive to be practicable. But it meets what I have always understood to be the major objection to the point put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East, namely, the provision of facilities for customers to deposit their shopping baskets while they shop in supermarkets. The real objection has been that that in itself presents security problems. People come with shopping baskets already partially filled. Where do they put them? What form of receipt do they get? Does the receipt have to include a list of the contents? Does such a system lay itself open to the complaint that people have not received back what they handed in? I accept that all those objections would be met by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West, if this proved to be a practical proposition. But, as I say, the provision of means of removing the shopping basket, for warning notices, for detectives in staff uniforms and for anti-theft devices are all matters that the working party will be considering within its terms of reference. The other disadvantage of the parking area for bags is that stores would have to employ extra trustworthy staff to operate it.
I accept that shoplifting is a serious crime. Its ramifications affect all society. Shops are becoming more aware of the need to protect their goods. But I do not accept that preventive measures should be made mandatory for shop proprietors. The examples adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East were all of legislation to prevent shoppers being defrauded by the shopkeeper, not to protect the shopper from himself. It is not the proper function of the criminal law to impose regulations in matters of this kind. The rôle of the Government is best confined to giving


advice, and this we shall do when the working party has issued its report and we have had time to study it.
Finally, I assure my hon. Friend that we shall consider carefully any suggestions that he makes as to the best method

by which the report of the working party might be circulated.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Three o'clock a.m.